R v Kingston
1995 · 2 AC 355
Posted By lanbuk.com
- Facts
- Kingston's coffee was drugged by a man who hoped to blackmail him. He then indecently assaulted a boy of fifteen who had also been drugged. He admitted that he intended the . He said he would not have done it had he been sober.
- Issue
- Does involuntary intoxication excuse an assault that was still intended?
- Held
- No. An intoxicated intent is still an intent. The involuntary nature of the intoxication did not negative the he in fact had.
- Principle
- Involuntary intoxication is relevant only where it prevents the mens rea. It is not a defence where the intent was formed.
- Why it matters
- It sits beside Majewski. The classification into specific and basic intent does not help a person who had the intent.
Words and Latin in this note
- Mens rea
- The mental element in the definition of a crime. It is not one standard. Intention is the highest form. Recklessness is below it. Gross negligence sits at the bottom. The definition of the particular crime decides which is required. Open the note.
For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.