R v Heard [2007] EWCA Crim 125

Court of Appeal

Facts: The defendant (D), who was intoxicated, rubbed his exposed penis against a police officer’s leg while being restrained at a hospital. D claimed that his extreme intoxication rendered him incapable of forming the necessary mens rea for sexual assault. He also argued that he had no recollection of the event due to his intoxication.

Held: The Court of Appeal upheld D’s conviction for sexual assault under s3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, ruling that sexual assault is a crime of basic intent. Therefore, D could not rely on voluntary intoxication to negate mens rea. The court clarified that intoxication does not absolve liability for crimes requiring only basic intent.

💡Levelup: This case clarified that sexual assault is a basic intent offence, meaning that voluntary intoxication cannot serve as a defence. It reinforced the Majewski rule that intoxication does not negate the mens rea for basic intent crimes.