The case of R v Allen (Kevin) [1988] Crim LR 698 is a leading authority in English criminal law on the question of intoxication and its effect as a potential defence. Specifically, it addresses whether a defendant who voluntarily consumes alcohol, but underestimates its strength, may rely on the defence of involuntary intoxication.
The judgement of the Court of Appeal clarified the principles of voluntary and involuntary intoxication, particularly in cases involving offences of basic intent. This case is regularly cited in academic discussion and judicial reasoning to reaffirm that voluntary intoxication, even if it produces unexpected levels of impairment, does not provide a defence.
Facts of R v Allen
The appellant, Mr Kevin Allen, was convicted of buggery and indecent assault. These offences occurred while he was under the influence of alcohol. He had consumed homemade wine, believing it to be of moderate strength. In reality, the wine was far more potent than he had anticipated, leading to a level of intoxication that severely affected his inhibitions and judgement.
Mr Allen contended that he had become so drunk that he was no longer in control of his actions, comparing his state to automatism. He argued that he was effectively incapable of forming the necessary mens rea for the offences. At trial, the judge refused to allow the defence of involuntary intoxication to be presented to the jury, holding that his drinking was a voluntary act.
Mr Allen appealed, claiming that the jury should have been permitted to consider whether his intoxication, caused by not knowing the true strength of the wine, was involuntary.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue in R v Allen was:
- Should the jury have been allowed to consider the effect of intoxication on the defendant’s responsibility for his actions, where the alcohol consumed was stronger than expected?
In other words, the Court had to decide whether ignorance of the strength of an alcoholic drink could render the defendant’s intoxication involuntary, thereby potentially providing a defence to charges of buggery and indecent assault.
Decision in R v Allen
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Allen’s appeal and upheld his conviction. The Court held that:
- The defendant’s drinking was voluntary, regardless of his ignorance of the wine’s actual strength.
- Not knowing the potency of the alcohol did not render his intoxication involuntary.
- By choosing to consume alcohol, the defendant accepted the risks associated with it, including the possibility of unexpected effects.
Therefore, the trial judge was correct in ruling that the defence of involuntary intoxication was not open to Mr Allen, and the conviction stood.
Reasoning in R v Allen
The Court emphasised the distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
- Voluntary intoxication occurs when an individual knowingly consumes alcohol or drugs. Even if the effects are stronger than expected, the intoxication remains voluntary. The law is clear that voluntary intoxication cannot serve as a defence to crimes of basic intent, such as indecent assault.
- Involuntary intoxication, by contrast, arises where the defendant consumes a substance without knowledge of its intoxicating nature (e.g., being secretly drugged or given alcohol without realising it). In such cases, the law may recognise a defence if the intoxication prevents the formation of mens rea.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Allen’s case clearly fell into the first category. He had chosen to drink wine, knowing it was alcoholic. The mere fact that the wine turned out to be stronger than anticipated did not alter the voluntary nature of his decision.
The judgement also stressed that even if alcohol removed Mr Allen’s inhibitions and influenced him to commit the offences, it did not prevent him from knowing what he was doing. Thus, intoxication did not negate mens rea in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of R v Allen (Kevin) is:
Where a defendant voluntarily consumes alcohol, ignorance of its strength does not render the intoxication involuntary. Therefore, intoxication caused by unexpectedly strong alcohol cannot serve as a defence to crimes of basic intent.
Obiter Dicta
In its reasoning, the Court made several observations which are considered obiter:
- Involuntary intoxication, in principle, may amount to automatism if it renders the defendant incapable of controlling his actions.
- Involuntary intoxication could also negate mens rea by preventing the defendant from forming the necessary intention, or by causing a mistaken belief relevant to the charge.
- Nonetheless, in all cases the prosecution must ultimately prove that the defendant possessed the required mens rea
Conclusion
The decision in R v Allen (Kevin) provides a clear reaffirmation of the principle that voluntary intoxication cannot be relied upon as a defence to crimes of basic intent. By holding that ignorance of the strength of alcohol does not amount to involuntary intoxication, the Court of Appeal closed the door on potential loopholes that could undermine accountability. The ruling balances fairness to defendants with the need to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.
While academic debate continues about the rigidity of the intoxication rules, this case remains a cornerstone authority, consistently cited in textbooks, lectures, and judgements dealing with the intersection of intoxication and criminal liability.