R v Kingston
Involuntary intoxication is no defence if the defendant still formed the intention required for the offence, even if he would not have formed it if sober.
Facts
Mr Kingston had homosexual paedophile tendencies, which he was able to control when sober. A man who wanted to blackmail him drugged his coffee and then invited him to indecently assault a 15 year old boy, who had also been drugged, and photographed the assault. Mr Kingston was convicted of indecent assault. He argued that he would not have committed the assault but for the drugs given to him without his knowledge, so his intent was not a criminal intent.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the conviction. Lord Mustill said that if a defendant forms the intention required for the offence, it is no defence that the intent arose out of circumstances for which he was not to blame, such as being secretly drugged. A drugged intent is still an intent. Involuntary intoxication is a defence only if it prevents the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea. The circumstances could be taken into account in mitigation of sentence.
Related cases on defences: insanity, automatism and intoxication
- Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
- DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443
- Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
- M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200
- R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760
- R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92
- R v Coley; R v McGhee; R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 223
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
