Legal Case Summary
R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698
Criminal – defence of involuntary self-administration of alcohol – indecent assault
Facts
Mr Allen consumed homemade wine that unknowingly to him was much stronger than he initially thought. As such, it had a much stronger effect on him than he anticipated. He sexually assaulted a person while under the influence of alcohol. He relied on the defence of involuntary intoxication and pleaded that he could not be responsible for his actions.
Issue
Whether Allen’s consumption of alcohol could be considered involuntary.
Decision / Outcome
It was held that Allen’s drinking had been a voluntary act and that ignorance as to the strength of the alcohol being consumed was no defence. As he had chosen to drink alcohol, he should have known or ought to have known the risks of consumption. The Court distinguished the Court of Appeal judgment of R. v Kingston (Barry) (1993) 97 Cr. App. R. 401, (later overturned by the House of Lords),where it was found that the consumption of drugs resulting in a bad trip had essentially done away with the defendant’s inhibitions, which was enough to negative the necessary mental element and the mens rea of the act. Even if the alcohol had done away with Allen’s inhibitions subsequently causing him to commit the offences, it was still not enough to negative the necessary mental element required to do the crimes. He would have been aware of what he was doing and the nature of his conduct, however drunk. Drunkenness was reinstated as being no defence to a crime. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary of R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698 remains broadly accurate as a statement of the law on voluntary intoxication. The core principle — that knowingly consuming alcohol, even if unaware of its precise strength, constitutes voluntary intoxication and is no defence — continues to represent good law.
One point in the article requires clarification. The article states that the Court of Appeal decision in R v Kingston (1993) 97 Cr App R 401 was ‘later overturned by the House of Lords.’ This is correct: the House of Lords reversed the Court of Appeal in R v Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355, holding that an involuntarily intoxicated defendant who nonetheless formed the necessary mens rea was still guilty. The House of Lords thus rejected the Court of Appeal’s approach that uninhibited but genuine intent could negative mens rea. Readers should note that Kingston [1995] 2 AC 355 (HL) is itself now the leading authority on involuntary intoxication, and its principles should be read alongside Allen.
The offence of indecent assault has since been abolished and replaced by offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but this does not affect the accuracy of the intoxication principles discussed, which remain applicable across relevant offences. The general framework governing intoxication as a defence, derived from DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443, has not been materially altered by subsequent legislation or case law.
