''R v Lipman'' 9701 QB 152 is an

English criminal law English criminal law concerns offences, their prevention and the consequences, in England and Wales. Criminal conduct is considered to be a wrong against the whole of a community, rather than just the private individuals affected. The state, i ...

precedent Precedent is a judicial decision that serves as an authority for courts when deciding subsequent identical or similar cases. Fundamental to common law legal systems, precedent operates under the principle of ''stare decisis'' ("to stand by thin ...

that self-induced (voluntary) intoxication, however extreme, is no defence to

manslaughter Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th ce ...

, provided a loss of control is foreseen by becoming intoxicated. The defendant in voluntarily taking dangerous drugs was found to have taken a dangerous risk which ordinary individuals would foresee, with his lack of intention to carry out dangerous acts not thereafter being relevant to a conviction of manslaughter.

Facts

The defendant and the victim, who were both alleged to be addicted to drugs, both took a quantity of

LSD Lysergic acid diethylamide, commonly known as LSD (from German ; often referred to as acid or lucy), is a semisynthetic, hallucinogenic compound derived from ergot, known for its powerful psychological effects and serotonergic activity. I ...

late on 16 September 1967. On the morning of the 18th he booked out of his hotel and left the country, before the victim was found the next day with haemorrhaging of the brain, and evidence of

asphyxiation Asphyxia or asphyxiation is a condition of deficient supply of oxygen to the body which arises from abnormal breathing. Asphyxia causes generalized hypoxia, which affects all the tissues and organs, some more rapidly than others. There are ...

. 9701 QB 152, at 155 The defendant was returned by

extradition In an extradition, one Jurisdiction (area), jurisdiction delivers a person Suspect, accused or Conviction, convicted of committing a crime in another jurisdiction, into the custody of the other's law enforcement. It is a cooperative law enforc ...

, then attested that he and the victim had experienced hallucinations from taking LSD. By his account, he imagined he had been attacked by snakes, resulting in his assault on the victim. The jury accepted that he had no intention to murder or commit grievous bodily harm, but nevertheless convicted him of manslaughter, on the direction of the judge that it would suffice for the prosecution to prove:

"He must have realised before he got himself into the condition he did by taking the drugs that acts such as those he subsequently performed and which resulted in the death were dangerous."

The defendant appealed, alleging the judge should have directed the jury to convict only if the prosecution could prove he had the requisite intention to carry out acts which were likely to result in harm.

Judgment

It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the decision of ''

R v Church R, or r, is the eighteenth letter of the Latin alphabet, used in the modern English alphabet, the alphabets of other western European languages and others worldwide. Its name in English is ''ar'' (pronounced ), plural ''ars''. The lette ...

''''R v Church'' placed a burden on the prosecution to show that the defendant had, by ruling out all other reasonable explanations for the action(s), intended the consequences of his actions. Widgery LJ held that this was not the case, stating that:

All that the judgment in Church's case says in terms is that whereas, formerly, a killing by any unlawful act amounted to manslaughter, this consequence does not now inexorably follow unless the unlawful act is one in which ordinary sober and responsible people would recognise the existence of risk. 9701 QB 152, at 158

Accordingly, since the jury had concluded that the defendant's actions had created a dangerous risk that ordinary people would foresee, it was immaterial that the defendant did not have any specific intent to carry out the actions. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentence of six years upheld.

References

{{reflist, 2 L 1969 in United Kingdom case law 1969 in the United Kingdom

Facts

Judgment

See also

References