Regina v. Kingston

Penn secretly drugged Kingston's (defendant) drink as part of a blackmail scheme, then photographed and recorded Kingston sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy at Penn's home. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that Kingston should be acquitted only if he lacked intent to commit the assault, noting that "a drugged intent is still an intent," and the jury convicted him. The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that someone who commits an illegal act only because a secretly administered drug destroyed his self-control lacked the required mens rea and should be acquitted, and the Crown appealed to the House of Lords.