The case of R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 is a leading English criminal law authority on voluntary intoxication and its limits as a defence. The decision clarified that voluntary consumption of dangerous drugs does not excuse a defendant from liability where death results from subsequent acts carried out under the influence. The court confirmed that self-induced intoxication, however extreme, cannot be relied upon to escape a conviction for manslaughter. Instead, the law imposes responsibility where a reasonable person would foresee the risks arising from intoxication.
This case is significant because it addressed the interaction between voluntary drug use, criminal responsibility, and the test for manslaughter. The judgement has remained an important precedent for distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, particularly in situations involving fatal consequences.
Background of R v Lipman Case
The defendant, Robert Lipman, and the victim, both alleged to have been addicted to drugs, ingested LSD together late on 16 September 1967. LSD is a hallucinogenic drug, and both individuals experienced intense hallucinations after consuming it. According to Lipman’s own account, he believed that he had been attacked by snakes during this period of hallucination.
In this state, Lipman inflicted violence on the victim, causing two blows to the head and ultimately leading to her death. The cause of death was haemorrhaging of the brain along with evidence of asphyxiation. Following the incident, Lipman checked out of his hotel on 18 September and left the country. The victim’s body was discovered the following day. Lipman was subsequently extradited back to face trial in England.
At trial, the jury accepted that Lipman did not have any intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Nevertheless, he was convicted of manslaughter. The judge directed the jury that the prosecution only needed to prove that Lipman should have realised, before taking the drugs, that his intoxication could result in dangerous acts which were likely to cause harm.
Legal Issue
The central issue in R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 was whether voluntary intoxication from drugs could act as a defence to manslaughter. Specifically, the question was whether the absence of intention to cause harm, due to being under the influence of LSD, prevented liability for unlawful killing.
The case also considered the application of section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which required courts to assess intention and foresight when determining criminal responsibility. The defendant argued that without a specific intent to commit a dangerous act, he should not have been held guilty of manslaughter.
Arguments on Appeal
Lipman appealed against his conviction. It was argued on his behalf that the trial judge had misdirected the jury. The defence submitted that the judge should have instructed the jury to convict only if the prosecution could prove that Lipman intended to carry out acts likely to result in harm.
The defence further relied on the precedent of R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59, which required that for manslaughter, the unlawful act must be one that a sober and reasonable person would recognise as dangerous. According to the defence, the judge had not applied this test correctly in Lipman’s case.
Court’s Reasoning in R v Lipman
The Court of Appeal dismissed Lipman’s appeal and upheld the conviction for manslaughter. In doing so, the court clarified the application of R v Church and the effect of voluntary intoxication on liability.
Lord Justice Widgery explained that the decision in Church had modified the common law rule that any unlawful killing automatically amounted to manslaughter. Under Church, a killing by an unlawful act is only manslaughter if that act is one which a sober and reasonable person would regard as dangerous.
Applying this test, the court held that Lipman’s actions while under the influence of LSD had clearly created a dangerous risk. A sober and reasonable person would have foreseen that voluntarily taking LSD involved the possibility of losing self-control and committing acts dangerous to others. Thus, even though Lipman lacked specific intent due to intoxication, this did not remove his liability for manslaughter.
The court further emphasised that section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 required a subjective assessment of the defendant’s state of mind. However, voluntary intoxication did not absolve a person from criminal liability, as the law made no distinction between the effects of alcohol and the effects of drugs in such circumstances.
R v Lipman Judgement
The appeal in R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 was dismissed. The Court of Appeal confirmed that voluntary intoxication was no defence to manslaughter. It was held that the minimum offence in such cases was manslaughter where death resulted from unlawful acts under the influence of drugs or drink.
Lipman’s conviction was therefore upheld, and the sentence of six years’ imprisonment remained in place.
Conclusion
The decision in R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 remains a crucial precedent in English criminal law. It firmly established that voluntary intoxication, however extreme, is no defence to manslaughter. By applying the R v Church test and section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, the Court of Appeal confirmed that liability depends on whether a sober and reasonable person would foresee the risk of harm.
The outcome of the case highlights the principle that individuals who voluntarily consume intoxicating substances bear responsibility for the foreseeable consequences. As such, R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 continues to be cited as an authority in criminal cases involving intoxication, ensuring that defendants remain accountable for reckless behaviour leading to fatal consequences.