Heard, R. v
Voluntary intoxication cannot be relied upon as a defence to sexual assault under section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003 because the offence is one of basic intent, requiring only intentional touching. The judge was correct to direct the jury that drunkenness was not a defence and that the touching must be deliberate. The conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Lee Heard
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction at Maidstone Crown Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sexual Offences, Voluntary Intoxication, Mens Rea, Specific Intent, Basic Intent
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Lee Heard
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction at Maidstone Crown Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether voluntary intoxication can negate the intent required for sexual assault under section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003
Ratio Decidendi
Voluntary intoxication cannot be relied upon as a defence to sexual assault under section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003 because the offence is one of basic intent, requiring only intentional touching. The judge was correct to direct the jury that drunkenness was not a defence and that the touching must be deliberate. The conviction is safe and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment