Evaluation of intoxication

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/12

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Last updated 6:06 PM on 5/20/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

13 Terms

1
New cards

What rule in intoxication is contrary to four rules of criminal liability

The MAJEWSKI RULE

2
New cards

What is controversial about recklessness in intoxication?

It is too far-fetched to suggest a person who is getting drunk is aware of the conduct it will lead to.

3
New cards

What principle does intoxication ignore?

That AR and MR must coincide, the recklessness in becoming drunk will occur before the crime occurs. - Gallagher

4
New cards

What other principle does intoxication contradict?

That the MR must be proved by the prosecution, D is presumed reckless unless he produces evidence otherwise.

5
New cards

What principle in section 8 Criminal Justice Act does intoxication contradict?

It contradicts that the jury should consider D’s subjective state of mind, as he is so intoxicated he will have no foresight of possible consequences - he will have no state of mind.

6
New cards

The distinction between what two crimes is technical and difficult for juries?

The distinction between basic intent and specific intent crimes

7
New cards

When can the basic and specific intent conversions become difficult?

If D voluntarily drinks a little but it also spiked

8
New cards

Why is the effect of a successful plea unpredictable?

D will not be acquitted, he will be guilty of a lesser offence if there is one, or he will be acquitted if there is not one.

9
New cards

What will D have to evaluate which may cause confusion?

If D knew the effects of an unpredictable drug

10
New cards

What reforms did the LC suggest?

  • Distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication maintained

  • Abolish terms of ‘specific’ and ‘basic’ intention

  • D should be presumed to not be intoxicated and have the burden of proof of proving otherwise.

11
New cards

What would the reforms mean for voluntary intoxication?

That for an offence only requiring recklessness D is treated as being aware of everything as if he was sober

12
New cards

What would D have in involuntary intoxication if the reforms were passed?

A Complete defence

13
New cards

Intoxication conclusion:

It is a technical defence with the specific/basic distinction and it also defies legal principles such as recklessness.