R v Allen

Facts

The defendant drank a quantity of homemade wine, the alcohol content of which was higher than he had expected because he had not appreciated its strength. While intoxicated he committed the offence charged, a crime of basic intent, and he said that because of the drink he did not know what he was doing.

History

The defendant was convicted at trial and appealed against conviction, contending that the intoxication should have been treated as involuntary because he did not know the alcohol content of the wine.

Issue

Whether intoxication is involuntary, so that it may be relied on as a defence to a crime of basic intent, where the defendant knowingly consumed alcohol but did not realise how strong it was.

Held

Appeal dismissed and the conviction upheld. The defendant knew that he was drinking alcohol and the intoxication was voluntary, and the effect of his ignorance of the strength of the drink was no defence to an offence of basic intent.

Ratio

• A defendant who consumes alcohol knowing that it is alcohol is voluntarily intoxicated, and he does not become involuntarily intoxicated because he is mistaken about its strength or its effect on him.
• Voluntary intoxication is no defence to a crime of basic intent, applying the rule in Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski [1977] AC 443.

Key reasoning

• The rule in Majewski treats the voluntary taking of an intoxicant as supplying the fault required for a crime of basic intent, and the ground of the rule is the dangerousness of the voluntary taking of alcohol, not the exact amount.
• The test for involuntary intoxication is whether the defendant had a free choice in taking the intoxicant, for example where the drink was laced by another or he was unaware of what he was consuming, and that was not so here.
• A defendant who knows that he is drinking alcohol takes the risk of its effects, and to accept a defence based on ignorance of the strength would undermine the rule in Majewski.

Where it fits in the module

In the Incapacity and General Defences topic the case is used to examine the line between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and the justification for the rule in Majewski. It raises the question whether a defendant who made an honest mistake about the potency of a drink should be treated as having been reckless.

Criticisms

• A defendant who honestly misjudged the strength of the drink may lack the recklessness on which the rule in Majewski is justified, and treating him as culpable stretches the fiction that fault in getting drunk supplies the fault for the offence.
• The distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication is drawn by reference to the knowledge of the nature of the substance, which gives a harsh result for a defendant who could not have known the effect.
• The case leaves unclear how far mistakes about quantity or potency differ from mistakes about the nature of a drug, a line that is hard to draw and which may depend on chance.