Herring. Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (8 edn, 2018). pp. 679-681.
Herring moots "drunken mistake" beneath marked by my red stars, but he never distinguishes between involuntary and voluntary drunkenness? Why not?
Herring appears to do so on p. 140
If defendants are involuntarily intoxicated then there are no special rules, and defendants will be reckless if they foresaw the risk, but if they did not foresee the risk they will not be reckless.56
56 Kingston  2 AC 355.
and p. 148
A summary of the law on intoxication:
Defendants who are involuntarily intoxicated can introduce evidence of their intoxication to persuade the jury that they lacked the mens rea of the crime. If, however, the jury finds they had the mens rea they will be guilty. If they did not, they are not guilty.
Defendants who are voluntarily intoxicated can introduce evidence of their intoxication to prove that they lacked the mens rea in crimes of specific intent and are therefore not guilty. In crimes of basic intent the fact that they were intoxicated when they committed the crime will provide the evidence that they had the necessary mens rea. →9 (p.187)
and p. 726.
The case of Kingston368 has been controversial. It will be recalled that the House of Lords held that the defendant, who was involuntarily intoxicated, could still be convicted of an offence providing he has the necessary mens rea. The approach of the Court of Appeal, that a defendant who suffered a disinhibition caused by a stratagem of a third party could have a defence, was rejected.