R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698

Facts

  • Mr. Allen consumed homemade wine provided by a friend, claiming to be unaware that it contained much more alcohol than normal.
  • He subsequently committed unlawful acts while intoxicated.
  • Allen's defense at trial was based on his mistaken belief regarding the wine’s alcohol strength.
  • The trial court rejected Allen’s argument that his misunderstanding about the drink’s potency excused his conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether a defendant’s mistake about the alcohol content of a drink can render their intoxication involuntary for the purposes of criminal liability.
  2. Whether such a mistake affects the defendant’s capacity to form the necessary mental element (mens rea) for criminal offenses, particularly distinguishing between basic and specific intent crimes.
  3. Whether the rules set out in DPP v Majewski regarding voluntary intoxication and criminal responsibility apply to cases involving mistakes about drink strength.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal found that an error about a drink’s alcohol strength does not make intoxication involuntary.
  • The court distinguished between involuntary intoxication (where the defendant is unaware of consuming alcohol at all) and cases of mistaken strength, holding only the former may constitute a defense if it negates mens rea.
  • The rules established in DPP v Majewski were affirmed: voluntary intoxication, including misjudged alcohol strength, generally cannot excuse liability for basic intent offenses.
  • The decision clarified that only if the mistake genuinely prevents formation of specific intent required for a particular crime, it may be relevant, but each case must be assessed on its facts.

Legal Principles

  • Voluntary intoxication, even due to honest mistakes about alcohol strength, does not constitute involuntary intoxication.
  • The defense of intoxication is only available if the defendant is unaware they are consuming an intoxicant and, as a result, lacks the required mens rea.
  • DPP v Majewski remains authoritative: voluntary intoxication is not a defense to crimes of basic intent but may be relevant for specific intent crimes if the intoxication negates intent.
  • The nature of the defendant’s error (about the presence vs the strength of alcohol) is central to assessing criminal responsibility.

Conclusion

R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698 clarified that a mistake regarding the strength of an alcoholic drink does not make intoxication involuntary and thus generally offers no defense to basic intent offenses, reaffirming the principles set out in DPP v Majewski while allowing limited exceptions for specific intent crimes where intent formation is genuinely impeded.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal