Sheehan [1975] 1 WLR 739 Drunken Intent “Drunken intent is
nevertheless intent” per Lane
LJ at 744
Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355 Drunken intent is nevertheless P had been hired by business
[1994] 3 W.L.R. 519 intent associates who knew that K
had paedophilic tendencies
and wanted to acquire
comprising information of this.
P gave K an inhibitive drug
then went into a room with
the drugged V and both
performed non-penetrative
acts on V whilst P secretly
recorded everything. V
remember nothing until the
next morning. K was convicted
but stressed he’d always kept
his tendencies under control.
CoA allowed appeal but HoL
dismissed as drunken intent is
nevertheless intent.
Majewski [1977] AC 443 [1976] Drunken intent/ Offence of HoL grappled with the issue of
2 W.L.R. 623 basic intent distinguishing basic intent
from specific intent and the
result was that basic intent
offences are those that are
committed recklessly
(summary of Lord Elwyn Jones
LC at 474-475) and confirmed
that intoxication is only a
defence for specific intent
offences and that the doctrine
of prior fault applies to basic
intent offences.
Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 [1969] Drunken intent D (high on LSD) thought he
3 W.L.R. 819 was fighting snakes when he
was actually stuffing bed
clothes down his girlfriend’s
throat and killed her. Held: jury
accepted that intoxication
prevented him from forming
the intention to kill or cause
GBH s18 but was found guilty
of manslaughter. Consider the
concept of fallback offences.
Attorney General for Northern Prior fault – Dutch Courage D consumed lots of alcohol in
Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC order to kill his wife and his
349 [1961] 3 W.L.R. 619 conviction was reinstated as he
had the mens rea for murder
before the alcohol – he only
drank to gather up the
nevertheless intent” per Lane
LJ at 744
Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355 Drunken intent is nevertheless P had been hired by business
[1994] 3 W.L.R. 519 intent associates who knew that K
had paedophilic tendencies
and wanted to acquire
comprising information of this.
P gave K an inhibitive drug
then went into a room with
the drugged V and both
performed non-penetrative
acts on V whilst P secretly
recorded everything. V
remember nothing until the
next morning. K was convicted
but stressed he’d always kept
his tendencies under control.
CoA allowed appeal but HoL
dismissed as drunken intent is
nevertheless intent.
Majewski [1977] AC 443 [1976] Drunken intent/ Offence of HoL grappled with the issue of
2 W.L.R. 623 basic intent distinguishing basic intent
from specific intent and the
result was that basic intent
offences are those that are
committed recklessly
(summary of Lord Elwyn Jones
LC at 474-475) and confirmed
that intoxication is only a
defence for specific intent
offences and that the doctrine
of prior fault applies to basic
intent offences.
Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 [1969] Drunken intent D (high on LSD) thought he
3 W.L.R. 819 was fighting snakes when he
was actually stuffing bed
clothes down his girlfriend’s
throat and killed her. Held: jury
accepted that intoxication
prevented him from forming
the intention to kill or cause
GBH s18 but was found guilty
of manslaughter. Consider the
concept of fallback offences.
Attorney General for Northern Prior fault – Dutch Courage D consumed lots of alcohol in
Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC order to kill his wife and his
349 [1961] 3 W.L.R. 619 conviction was reinstated as he
had the mens rea for murder
before the alcohol – he only
drank to gather up the
