Keywords
intoxication, Leary v. The Queen, D.P.P v. Majewski, mens rea, recklessness, mistake, capacity as opposed to intent, crime
Abstract
In a previous article, I dealt with the argument that the present law on the intoxication defence was well-founded on legal authority and concluded that it was not. I then suggested that those wishing to uphold the present law as represented by Leary v. The Queen and D.PP v. Majewski would have to find support in other arguments. The purpose of this article is therefore to examine those arguments to see whether they provide sufficient ground for the current state of the law in Canada and England. In particular, the specific-general intent dichotomy will be examined in this light.
Recommended Citation
Tim Quigley, "Specific and General Nonsense?" (1987) 11:1 Dal LJ 75.
