Voluntary intoxication: specific and basic intent (DPP v Majewski)
After drinking heavily all evening in a bar in Cardiff, Tyrone Bailey smashes a glass into Will Evans's face, causing a deep cut. He is charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm under s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, with an alternative count under s.20. There is evidence that he was so drunk he may not have formed any intention to cause serious harm. His intoxication was entirely voluntary.
Which of the following best describes the relevance of Tyrone's intoxication?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer A: It may bear on whether he formed the specific intent for s.18; if the jury are not sure he did, they may convict under s.20, where voluntary intoxication is no defence.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Voluntary intoxication may be considered only on whether D formed a specific intent (e.g. s.18); it is no defence to basic intent offences such as s.20 or s.47.
Voluntary intoxication: specific and basic intent (DPP v Majewski)
Under DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443, as explained in R v Dowds [2012] EWCA Crim 281, voluntary intoxication can be taken into account only where the offence is one of specific intent, and only in deciding whether that intent was present. Section 18 requires an intent to do grievous bodily harm, which is a specific intent. The jury may consider Tyrone's drunkenness in deciding whether he actually formed that intent. Section 20 requires no specific intent, only foresight of some harm (R v Mowatt, approved in R v Savage), so it is an offence of basic intent. Voluntary intoxication is no answer to it, and Tyrone cannot rely on a failure to foresee harm caused by his own drinking. If the jury are not sure about the s.18 intent, they should acquit on that count and may convict under s.20.
Why B is wrong: Voluntary intoxication can be relevant to whether a specific intent was formed.
Why C is wrong: For basic intent offences such as s.20, voluntary intoxication cannot be relied on to negate the mens rea.
Why D is wrong: Voluntary intoxication is relevant to specific intent offences; involuntary intoxication is a separate matter.
Why E is wrong: This reverses the rule: intoxication is relevant to the specific intent offence (s.18), not the basic intent offence (s.20).
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Wounding with intent to resist lawful arrest (s.18 OAPA 1861)
Which of the following best describes Jordan's liability under s.18?
Consent to actual bodily harm for sexual gratification (Domestic Abuse Act 2021, s.71)
Which of the following best describes whether Sam's consent prevents Elliot being guilty of the s.47 offence?
Self-defence in a householder case: grossly disproportionate force (CJIA 2008, s.76(5A))
Which of the following best describes how the jury should approach the degree of force Rahul used?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.