## Facts

- Barry Kingston was lured to a room as part of a scheme to obtain compromising material for blackmail.
- A third party arranged for a 15-year-old boy to be present and secretly administered a drug that rendered the boy unconscious.
- The third party also secretly drugged Kingston’s drink, without Kingston’s knowledge.
- Kingston and the third party performed sexual acts on the unconscious boy; the events were recorded and photographed.
- Kingston admitted the acts and claimed the drug removed his inhibitions; he asserted he would usually resist such impulses.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that intoxication did not excuse if Kingston still intended the act; if intoxication prevented intent, the jury must acquit.
- The jury convicted Kingston of indecent assault; the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the theory that involuntary intoxication could excuse even if intent was proved.
- The Crown appealed to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether involuntary intoxication provides a defense when the prosecution proves the defendant in fact formed the mens rea required for the offense.
2. If such a defense exists, how the burden of proof should be allocated.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed the Crown’s appeal.
- The Court of Appeal’s ruling was set aside, and the conviction was restored (subject to consideration of any remaining appellate grounds).
- The trial judge’s direction that “a drugged intent is still an intent” was approved as a correct statement of law.
- The House rejected a free-standing defense based on involuntary intoxication where intent is proved.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability generally turns on proof of the prohibited act and the mens rea required by the offense; if mens rea is proved, the law does not add a separate requirement that the defendant be morally at fault for the circumstances producing that state of mind.
- Intoxication is relevant only insofar as it shows the defendant did not form the required mens rea; if the defendant did form intent, intoxication does not excuse.
- The same mens rea-focused approach applies even when intoxication is involuntary: the decisive question is whether the defendant actually intended the act.
- Earlier suggestions that involuntary intoxication caused by another’s stratagem can excuse despite proved intent were not accepted as good law on that point.
- Broad new defenses grounded in absence of fault were treated as matters better left to legislative change rather than judicial creation.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that involuntary intoxication does not excuse criminal liability where the defendant actually formed the intent required for the offense; disinhibition caused by another’s wrongdoing does not negate mens rea when intent is proved.


Regina v. Kingston, [1995] 2 A.C. 355 (H.L. 1994)