R v Lipman

Facts

The defendant and a companion took the drug LSD together. During the effects of the drug the defendant hallucinated that he was descending to the centre of the earth and fighting snakes, and in that state struck the companion and stuffed bedclothes into her mouth. She died from asphyxia, and when the effects of the drug wore off the defendant found her dead.

History

The defendant was charged with murder. The jury convicted him of manslaughter, and he appealed against that conviction.

Issue

Whether a defendant who, as a result of voluntarily taking a drug, lacks any intention to kill or to cause serious harm, can be convicted of manslaughter or whether the intoxication is a defence.

Held

Appeal dismissed and the conviction for manslaughter upheld.

Ratio

• Self-induced intoxication through drugs is not a defence to manslaughter, which does not require proof of a specific intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
• Where the defendant did an unlawful and dangerous act which caused death, it is no answer that his mind was affected by a drug that he chose to take.

Key reasoning

• The distinction between offences that require a specific intent and those that do not, as drawn in earlier authority on intoxication, applied to determine the effect of the drug on liability.
• The jury were entitled to find that the defendant lacked the intent for murder, but that finding left the defendant liable for manslaughter because that crime did not turn on the intent to kill.
• The court treated the taking of a dangerous drug as a voluntary act, so the resulting state could not excuse the defendant.

Where it fits in the module

Within the Topic 8 debate on intoxication, Lipman shows how English law deals with defendants who commit homicide under the influence of drugs. It illustrates the specific and basic intent distinction and the use of manslaughter as a fall-back for those who kill without the intent for murder because of voluntary intoxication.

Criticisms

• The case treats a hallucinating defendant as liable for a homicide for which he had no awareness or foresight of harm, which raises the problem of punishing without fault at the time of the act.
• The reliance on the specific and basic intent distinction is difficult to justify in principle, and manslaughter lacks the clear mental element that would make the distinction easy to apply.
• Treating the voluntary taking of a drug as sufficient fault ignores the question whether the defendant knew the drug could cause violent behaviour, which is a risk that the defendant here may not have foreseen.