Regina v Kingston, 1994 [1994] UKHL 9
Citation:Regina v Kingston, 1994 [1994] UKHL 9
Rule of thumb:Is ‘I got spiked’ an absolute defence to committing a crime? It can be, but often it will not be, and it will still up to the accused to prove their defence using medical evidence.
Background facts:
The facts of this case were that Kingston had his drink spiked, involuntary intoxication, and he then carried out a sexual assault.
Judgment:
The Court affirmed that this is not necessarily a silver bullet ultimate defence. The jury can still consider whether a total absence of loss of mind had occurred so that the defendant had no clue what they were doing, or whether there was still a sufficient degree of mental awareness to ensure that the crime did still take place. In short, involuntary intoxication may still be deemed to be mitigation of punishment rather than an absolute to not having the mens rea for a crime to take place.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘In those offences which are not absolute the state of mind which the prosecution must prove to have underlain the act or omission – the ‘mental element’ – will in the majority of cases be such as to attract disapproval. The mental element will then be the mark of what may properly be called a ‘guilty mind’. Lord Mustill
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.