Discuss whether intoxication represents legal principle or public policy

by euancareyyahoocouk (student)

ï»¿Discuss whether intoxication represents legal principle or public policy

Intoxication is split into voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is where the defendant willingly consumes whatever causes the intoxication and involuntary is where they do not. Intoxication lowers a charge to the one below it so for murder they would instead get manslaughter

One of the first cases that show Intoxication is the case of Lipman. This is where a man took LSD and ended up thinking his wife was a snake and strangled her. They got the defence of intoxication as they did not have the mens rea for the crime. This is good public policy as the public would not expect someone to be convicted of murder if they had no mens rea. Another case that is more the opposite of this in intoxication is the case of Kingston. This is where someone took coffee but it was spiked and they ended up committing a crime. They did not get the defence as the defendant already had the mens rea for the crime. Furthermore, the case of Gallagher also shows mens rea before intoxication as they drank for dutch courage to do the crime but did not get the defence as they had mens rea before the crime happened. This shows that intoxication clearly represents legal principle as the defendant without mens rea got the defence whilst the defendant with mens rea didn’t.

Furthermore, the case of Sheehan V Moore shows that intoxication reflects and represents legal principle more than public policy due to the fact that public policy would clearly want a conviction. This is where the defendants set fire to a tramp whilst they were drunk but ended up getting the defence as they did not have the mens rea for the crime. This kind of drunken behaviour is also shown in the case of Richardson V Irwin where drunken friends threw someone from a high place which caused them serious injuries. They also got the defence due to ...