R v Kingston [1995]

1. Facts:

• D was involuntarily intoxicated and subsequently assaulted an underaged V.

• D's drink was spiked, leading to loss of inhibitions and committing the offence.

2. Outcome:

• CoA quashed the conviction, citing loss of inhibitions due to drugging.

• HoL upheld the conviction, stating D had the necessary mens rea.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Mens Rea and Involuntary Intoxication: HoL ruled that involuntary intoxication does not absolve a defendant if they still form the necessary mens rea for the offence.

• Legal Principle: Lord Mustill clarified that involuntary intoxication is not an automatic exculpatory defence if the defendant retains the intent to commit the crime.

• Narrowing Defence Scope: Reinforced that involuntary intoxication must negate the mens rea for it to be a defence, ensuring that defendants who form intent while involuntarily intoxicated are still held accountable.