판결 이유
Voluntary intoxication (by alcohol or drugs) is no defence to a charge of a 'basic intent' offence (one that can be committed recklessly). However, voluntary intoxication may be a defence to a 'specific intent' offence (one requiring intention) if the defendant was so intoxicated that they could not form the required intent.
사실관계
Majewski, heavily intoxicated on drink and drugs, attacked a pub landlord, customers, and police officers. He was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 OAPA 1861) and assaulting a police constable in the execution of his duty. He argued that his intoxication prevented him from forming the necessary mens rea.
판결 요약
The House of Lords held that voluntary intoxication is not a defence to offences of 'basic intent' (those that can be committed recklessly, such as assault, ABH, and criminal damage). The reasoning is that becoming voluntarily intoxicated is itself a reckless course of conduct. However, for 'specific intent' offences (those requiring proof of a particular intention, such as murder, s.18 GBH, and theft), evidence of intoxication may be relevant to whether the defendant actually formed the required intent. The distinction between specific and basic intent has been criticised but remains the law.
주요 인용문
"If a man of his own volition takes a substance which causes him to cast off the restraints of reason and conscience, no wrong is done to him by holding him answerable criminally for any injury he may do while in that condition."
— Lord Elwyn-Jones LC
후속 처리
Remains the leading authority on voluntary intoxication as a defence. The specific intent/basic intent distinction is consistently applied by the courts despite academic criticism.