R v Lipman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R v Lipman | |
|---|---|
![](#/media/File:"Drunk_Father"_by_George_Bellows.jpg) | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | R v Lipman (Robert) |
| Decided | 29 July 1969 |
| Citation | [1970] 1 QB 152; [1969] 3 WLR 819; [1969] 3 All ER 410; (1969) 53 Cr App R 600; (1969) 133 JP 712; (1969) 113 SJ 670 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action | none |
| Case opinions | |
| Self-induced (voluntary) intoxication, however extreme, is no defence to manslaughter, provided a loss of control is foreseen by becoming intoxicated. | |
| Keywords | |
| |
R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 is an English criminal law precedent that self-induced (voluntary) intoxication, however extreme, is no defence to manslaughter, 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.
The defendant and the victim, who were both alleged to be addicted to drugs, both took a quantity of LSD 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.[1] The defendant was returned by extradition, 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."[1]
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.[1]