[4] However, this fails to explain why murder is considered a crime of specific intent, despite the fact that its mental aspect is equal or less than the actus reus requirement of causing death.
[4] Lord Simon's judgement in the same case advanced a different definition: crimes of specific intent required a "purposive element".
It is possible that the prosecution would be allowed, in certain circumstances, to dispense with the original mens rea entirely and rely solely on the voluntary intoxication to provide the fault element.
[14] While generally an intoxicated individual cannot form specific intent to perform a crime, an exception to this rule is provided by the case of A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.
[18] Thus in R v Allen[19] a man who committed indecent assault and buggery was convicted, with his argument rejected that he did not realise the wine he was drinking was strongly alcoholic.
[20] In effect, this means that – as was originally stated a century ago in R v Beard[21] – it is no defence that one loses his inhibitions due to involuntary intoxication, and goes on to commit a crime.
A recent example of this principle can be found in R v Kingston,[22] where an individual, after having his drinks spiked by his co-defendant, committed indecent assault on a boy aged 15.
It was found that the defendant had merely given way to his paedophilic intentions, and not lacked a mens rea to commit the acts altogether: the fact he was involuntarily intoxicated went only to mitigate sentencing.