R v Kingston

Facts

Kingston had paedophilic tendencies which he normally suppressed. A co-defendant, who intended to blackmail him, secretly gave him a drug and arranged for him to be with a fifteen year old boy, who had himself been drugged. Kingston then committed an indecent assault on the boy while the other man took photographs. Kingston said that the drug had so reduced his inhibitions that he would not have acted as he did but for it, and the case proceeded on the footing that he had been drugged without his knowledge.

History

Kingston was convicted of indecent assault at the Crown Court after the judge directed the jury that involuntary intoxication was not a defence if he had the necessary intent. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction on the footing that a defence of involuntary intoxication existed in these circumstances. The prosecution appealed to the House of Lords.

Issue

Whether a defendant who forms the intent required for an offence while involuntarily intoxicated, and who would not have committed the offence but for the drug, may rely on involuntary intoxication as a defence.

Held

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored. Involuntary intoxication is not a defence where the defendant had the necessary intent at the time of the offence, even if the drug removed his inhibitions and caused him to do what he would otherwise have resisted.

Ratio

• Involuntary intoxication is relevant only to the extent that it prevents the defendant from forming the mens rea of the offence; if he nevertheless formed the intent, the fact that the drug reduced his inhibitions and caused him to act as he would not have done sober provides no defence.

The judgments

Key reasoning

• The definition of a crime sets out the mental element that must be proved, and if it is proved the offence is made out, whatever the explanation for the defendant's decision to act.
• A new defence of lack of moral fault would be a major change, raising questions of drugs, the line between desires and capacity to resist, and the scope of the voluntary or involuntary distinction, which were matters for Parliament.
• The involuntary nature of the intoxication was relevant to sentence, since the defendant's moral responsibility was lessened, but not to guilt.

Where it fits in the module

Kingston is a central case on intoxication within general defences. It tests the relationship between mens rea, moral blameworthiness and the defences, and it illustrates the choice between treating intoxication as negating mens rea or as an excuse. It also supports the argument that the criminal law is concerned with intention at the time of the act and not with whether the defendant could have resisted the impulse.

Criticisms

• Refusing a defence to a drugged defendant whose acts were out of character punishes someone who is not morally responsible for his state, and the mitigation of sentence is an inadequate substitute for acquittal.
• The distinction between a drug that negates intent and one that merely removes inhibitions is difficult to draw in practice, and rests on contested ideas of what the will is.
• The decision leaves open how involuntary intoxication should be treated in relation to offences of basic intent or negligence, where the issue is not intention but awareness or capacity.