Providing resources for studying law
Custom Search
   Home      R v Allen [1988]
R v Allen [1988] Crim LR 698

The appellant consumed some home made wine. This had a much greater effect on him than anticipated. He committed sexual assaults and claimed he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing. He argued that he had not voluntarily placed himself in that condition as the wine was much stronger than he realised.


The intoxication was still voluntary even though he had not realised the strength of it. The crime of sexual assault is one of basic intent and therefore the appellant was unable to rely on his intoxicated state to negative the mens rea.
Back to lecture outline on intoxication and criminal liability