判决理由
Involuntary intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge if the defendant still formed the necessary mens rea. A drugged intent is still an intent. The fact that the defendant would not have committed the offence but for being surreptitiously drugged does not negative the mens rea.
事实
Kingston, a man with paedophilic tendencies which he managed to keep under control, was surreptitiously drugged by Penn (who intended to blackmail him). While in a disinhibited state, Kingston sexually assaulted a 15-year-old boy whom Penn had also drugged. Kingston argued that his involuntary intoxication meant he lacked the requisite mens rea or should have a defence.
判决摘要
The House of Lords allowed the prosecution's appeal and restored Kingston's conviction. Lord Mustill, delivering the leading speech, held that the law recognises no defence of involuntary intoxication where the defendant has formed the required intent. A drugged intent is still an intent. While the defendant's moral blameworthiness might be reduced, that was a matter for sentencing, not for a defence negating criminal liability. To create such a defence would be a matter for Parliament.
关键引述
"The respondent's paedophiliac tendencies were the driving force behind the offence. The disinhibiting effect of the drug enabled what the tendencies produced. A drugged intent is still an intent."
— Lord Mustill
后续处理
Consistently applied as the leading authority on involuntary intoxication. The Law Commission has recommended reform but Parliament has not acted.