Regina v. Kingston

Facts

A man named Penn wanted to blackmail the defendant, so he invited a young boy over to his house and drugged him. Penn then invited the defendant to his house, drugged him, and took pictures of the defendant sexually abusing the young boy. During the trial, the judge instructed the jury it should acquit the defendant only if it found that due to the drug he did not intend to commit an indecent assault, but as long as he had intent, it was irrelevant that he had been drugged. On appeal, defense counsel argued there was an exception in the law whereby an accused person may be acquitted if there is a possibility his intent arose out of circumstances for which he is not at fault, even though his act was intentional. Defense further argued that a man is not responsible for a condition produced by the fraud of another. In sum, defense contended that if a person is drugged and loses self-control and forms an intent they would not otherwise have formed, the law should exculpate that individual because the fault lies elsewhere. The Court of Appeals found involuntary intoxication negates the necessary mens rea and set aside the appellant’s conviction.