8 - Capacity defences Flashcards
What are the capacity defences?
Insanity / insane automatism
Automatism / non insane automatism
Intoxication
M’naughten rules
insanity
Established 3 key rules that have to apply to the individual committing the act:
* Defect of reason
* As a result of a disease of the mind
* Causes the D not to know the nature and quality of his act
M’Naughten 1843
Thought he was being persecuted by Gov and so attempted to kill an MP but killed a Secretary instead
Found not guilty for murder by reason of insanity and was committed to a hospital
Procedural rules of insanity
- defendant is presumed sane
- the prosecution,defence and judge can raise the issue of insanity
- the burdne of proof is on the D
- The judge decided if the D is fit to plead
Why is insanity rarely raised as a defence
social stigma
antiquated definition
the introduction of diminished responsibility
Defect of reason
Insanity
must be deprived of the power to reason, not just failing to use it
doesnt include absentmindedness or being confused
R v clarke 1972
defect of reason
D picked up 3 items from a supermarket and left without paying
She was charged with theft but claimed she didn’t have the mens rea as she had no recollection of the event. She suffered from absent mindedness caused by diabetes and depression.
Disease of the mind
insanity
Defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind.
This is a legal term not a medical one and can be mental or physical cause that effects the mind
Includes brain tumours, epilepsy, depression, schizophrenia, paranoia, diabetes etc
Hennessy 1989 –
disease of the mind
high blood sugar levels because of diabetes classed as insanity as the insulin levels affect the mind
He had no recollection of stealing a car and driving off in it
Insanity (point of law)
The disease of the mind must originate from an internal source
Not knowing the nature or quality of your act
Means the physical nature and consequence, not the moral element of the act
May be due to:
* a state of unconsciousness or impaired unconsciousness
* or lack of understanding or awareness due to a mental condition while conscious
Johnson 2007
not knowing the quality of ur act
Forced his way into a neighbours flat and stabbed him (s20)
2 doctors said he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and hallucinations
However they both agreed that despite this the D knew the nature and quality of his acts and knew that they were legally wrong
Defence of insanity was not available to him
Automatism
An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm or convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing
Consoquences of an insanity verdict
hospital order
supervision order
absolute discharge
Reform of the insanity defence
law commision -
* to name someone with a diesease like diabetes is outdated
* the legal definiton of insanity isnt the same as the medical one
* sleepwalking cases lead to inconsistency
Requirements for automatism
The Defence must provide the evidence for automatism
There must be an external factor –
* Struck on the head
* Being overcome with a sudden illness
* Hiccups
There must be a total loss of control
Must be an external factor
R v T 1990
exceptional stress can be an external factor
Reduced or partial control of one’s actions is not sufficient – there must be total destruction of voluntary control
automatism
Burden of proof
automatism
the evidential burden of proof to prove automatism in on the Defence
Legal burden of proof is on the prosecution
Self induced automatism
A defence of automatism will not be successful if the D knows that their conduct will bring about an automatic state
Bailey 1983
D was diabetic and failed to eat enough after taking insulin. He became aggressive and hit someone in the head with an iron bar
self induced automatism
reforms for automatism defence
- defendnats who raised teh defence due to a recognised medical condition which caused a lack of capacity woudl be required to pleased the new reconised medical condition defence
- a sucsessful outcome in raising the new defence would lead to a complete aquital
Intoxication
Includes alcohol, drugs and other substances
Relevant in that it can effect the mens rea and therefore liability
Was the D intoxicated involuntarily or voluntarily
Was the offence as specific intent or basic intent one
Voluntary intoxication
Capacity defense
Where the D has chosen to take drink/drugs etc
It can also occur where the D knows that the effect of a prescribed drug will make him intoxicated
Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for a specific intent offence
If he is so intoxicated he cannot form the mens rea – so no liability
specific intent crimes
Sheehan and Moore 1975
D v drunk and threw petrol on a tramp and set fire to him.
They were too drunk to have formed any intent to kill or cause GBH
Guilty of manslaughter instead of murder
Where the D has the necessary mens rea despite his intoxicated state then he is guilty of the offence – drunken intent is still intent
Involuntray intoxication
where the D doesnt know that what they are taking is intoxicating -such as perscription durgs
If the D wouldn’t have realised the risk even if they were sober then the jury should find them not guilty
Being intoxicated should not automatically make them guilty
Majweski 1976
Had taken drugs and drink and attacked people in a pub. Police tired to arrest him and he attacked them. Convicted of three counts of s47. Upheld in CA
In more recent cases the jury have been asked to consider if the D would have realised the risk had he not been intoxicated
involuntray intoxication
Specific intent crimes and intoxication
if the d was no intoxicated as to be incapable of forming mens rea - complete defence
Basic intent crimes and intoxication
where recklessness is sufficient to prove mens rea, the defence fails
Kingston 1994
coffee was drugged by someone who wanted to blackmail him. He was then shown a 15 year old boy who was asleep and was invited to abuse him. The D did so and he was photographed by the blackmailer
Convicted of ABH upheld by H of L
Held that the D had the mens rea anyway and therefore involuntary intoxication wasn’t a defence
involuntary intoxication
Proposals for reform in intoxication
law commision report 2009 -
* there should be a rpimary presumption that the D wasnt intoxicated, the defence shoudl prove that they were
* there should be a retained distinction between voluntary and involuntry intoxication
* if the d states that they were involuntrarily intoxicated, then they woudl have to prove it
