The respondent had done some work for the owner of a hotel as the result of which he had a quarrel with the owner, got drunk and set fire to the hotel in revenge.

The fire was discovered and put out before any serious damage was caused and none of the ten guests in the hotel at the time was injured. The respondent was indicted on two counts of arson under s 1(1) and (2)^a of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

At his trial he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging the property of another, contrary to s 1(1), but pleaded not guilty to the more serious charge under s 1(2) of damaging property with intent to endanger life or being reckless whether life would be endangered.

He claimed that he was so drunk at the time that the thought that he might be endangering the lives of the people in the hotel had never crossed his mind. The trial judge directed the jury that drunkenness was not a defence to a charge under s 1(2) and he was convicted.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that the mental element of intention or recklessness in regard to endangering life referred to in s 1(2)(b) was a matter of specific intent going beyond the actus reus and therefore had to be established as a separate ingredient of the offence, and drunkenness could accordingly be a good defence.

The Crown appealed to the House of Lords.