R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152
Criminal – voluntary self-administration of drugs – intent – manslaughter
Facts:
Robert Lipman was convicted of manslaughter for killing his friend while on a bad LSD trip. She suffered two blows to the head and died of asphyxia. He appealed against the conviction.
Issues:
To what extent the law relating to unlawful killing under the influence of drinks or drugs was altered by s 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (the Act).
Held:
The court held that s 8 of the Act required that an unlawful killing under the influence of drink or drugs had to amount to manslaughter as a minimum conviction. The court applied the test in R v Church [1966] 1 Q.B. 59, 69, whether a sober and reasonable man would foresee that there was a risk. It was further found that manslaughter required proof of mens rea to the extent that a sober and reasonable person could have foreseen the risks of taking drugs and some harm resulting. Determination of a guilty mind was necessary at a subjective level under the Act. In consideration of Lipman’s state of mind at the time of the incident, he was found to be intoxicated, therefore the court held that as drunkenness is no defence to a criminal charge, and see as there had deliberately been no distinction made between the effects of drugs and that of alcohol, Lipman was guilty as charged. The trial Judge’s finding was upheld in that Lipman knew that the acts performed on the victim were dangerous and likely to result in death, knew that drugs were dangerous and risked serious harm to another or himself and knew that taking drugs in those circumstances was grossly negligent and reckless. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a statement of the decision in R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152. The case continues to be good law and is still cited in discussions of voluntary intoxication and manslaughter.
However, readers should be aware of some important legal developments since 1970. First, the summary’s description of the mens rea for unlawful act manslaughter should be read alongside later clarifications. The objective test from R v Church [1966] 1 QB 59 — whether a sober and reasonable person would recognise the risk of some harm — was confirmed and refined by the House of Lords in R v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500, which makes clear that the defendant need not foresee any harm at all; it is sufficient that the unlawful act was one which a sober and reasonable person would inevitably recognise must subject another person to at least the risk of some harm. This is a significant clarification not clearly reflected in the summary.
Second, the article’s treatment of s 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 requires care. That section governs the drawing of inferences as to intention or foresight and requires a subjective approach. The courts have since developed the law on intoxication more fully, particularly in DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443, which confirmed that voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent, of which manslaughter is one. Students should consult Majewski alongside Lipman for a complete picture of this area.
The core principles described in this article — that voluntary self-intoxication by drugs is treated equivalently to alcohol and provides no defence to manslaughter — remain good law.
