8: Capacity defences Flashcards
what are the capacity defences
- insanity
- automatism
- intoxication
what is meant by capacity defences
impact ads capacity to understand or control their conduct so they don’t have the MR for the offence
what is insanity also known as
insane automatism
rules for insanity
must be present at the time of the offence
D must prove on the balance of probabilities that they were insane
Plaintiff must prove beyond reasonable doubt that D was insane
presumption of sanity
what happens is defence of insanity succeeds
special verdict that D is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’
judge can impose: (under The Criminal Procedure Act 1991)
- hospital order (with or without restrictions)
- guardianship order
- supervision order
- treatment order
- absolute discharge
BUT in a charge of murder indefinite hospitalisation is unavoilabke
where does the law on insanity come from
the case of M’Naghten
states there is 3 key issues that must be established:
(1) Defect of reason
(2) caused by a ‘disease of the mind’
(3) so that D doenst know the nature and quality of his act or does not know what he was doing wrong
explain ‘Defect of reason’
Ds power of reasoning must be impaired (inability to use powers of reason)
if D is capable of reasoning but has failed to use those powers, this is insufficient
confusion or absentminded was is not insanity (Clarke)
explain ‘caused by a disease of the mind’
the defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind
this is a legal term, not a medical term
the disease must be due to an internal factor
- can be a mental disease of a physical disease that affects the mind (Kemp)
- doenst include one brought on by external factors such as drugs
it can be temporary (Sullivan) or permanent
- Kemp: arteriosclerosis (affected his mental reasoning, memory and understanding)
- Bratty: psychomotor epileptic seizure
- Sullivan: minor epileptic fit (includes any organic or functional disease)
- Hennesey: diabetes
- Burgess: sleepwalking (if the cause is internal)
- Thomas: rare sleep disorder (failure to take medication so internal)
- Oye: paranoid schizophrenia
explain ‘so that D doenst know the nature and quality of his act or does not know what he was doing wrong’
D must prove that
(1) he did not know what he was doing
(2) OR he didn’t appreciate the circumstances of his act
(3) OR he didn’t appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting
eg, Windle: knew the nature and quality of his act and that what he was doing was wrong
eg, Oye: unable to understand the nature of his conduct
what is automatism also known as
non-insane automatism
what happens if automatism defence is successful
it is a complete defence; D is not guilty
- this is bc the AR of the crime is involuntary (Hill v Baxter) and because of automatism the D doenst have the necessary MR, so D isn’t at fault for their behaviour
what must D prove for automatism
D must prove his act was
- involuntary
- due to an external factor
explain ‘involuntary act’
Bratty defined automatism as:
“an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such a s a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing”
Ds mind is not controlling his limbs in a purposeful manner
there has to be a total lack of awareness, if D has partial control it is insufficient (AG’s Ref No2 of 1992, Broome v Perkins)
- must be ‘total destruction of voluntary control’
explain ‘external factor’
automatism has been caused by an external factors, eg:
- an attack by a swarm of bees (Hill v Baxter)
- a blow to the head/concussion
- PTSD (R v T)
- hypnotism
- sleepwalking (if cause is external) (Bratty)
- taking medication such as insulin (Quick)
- sneezing fit (Woolie)
automatism cant be self induces
explain self induced automatism
self induced automatism is where D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state
- eg, a diabetic failing to eat after taking insulin
Bailey: self induced automatism can be a defence to a specific intent offence; D lacks necessary MR. BUT, it cannot be a defence to a basic intent offence since subjective recklessness is sufficient for the MR of basic intent offences
Hardie: where D doenst know that his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state in which he may commit an offence. he has not been reckless so can use the defence
what is intoxication
intoxication is not really a defence in itself but it is relevant as to whether D has the relevant MR for the offence
if D doenst have the MR due to intoxication, he may not be guilty
what does the intoxication defence depend on
- whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent
- whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
basic intent offences
where recklessness is sufficient MR
- assault
- battery
- s47 ABH
- s20 GBH
- unlawful act manslaughter
- gross negligence manslaughter
specific intent offences
where recklessness is not sufficient MR, there must be intention
- murder
- theft
- robbery
- s18 GBH
explain the principles of specific intent/basic intent offences for the intoxication defence
the general principle is that intoxication is a defence to crimes of specific intent, not basic intent.
- Beard: voluntary intoxication can negate the MR for a specific intent offence
Majewski: voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct which is enough to constitute the MR for basic intent offences.
- BUT, Richardson & Irwin: the jury should consider whether D would have realised the risk had he not been intoxicated. Must still be a foreseeable risk to D if they were sober (reasonable man test)
Sheehan & Moore: Ds too intoxicated to form MR for murder or GBH they will be guilty of manslaughter as it is a basic intent offence
if the MR is formed before the intoxication, the defence will fail (AG for NI v Gallagher)
what is voluntary intoxication
D takes the drinks or drugs if his own free will
what is involuntary intoxication
D doesn’t realise he is taking drink or drugs
- spiked drink
- prescribed drugs
- takes non dangerous, unprescribed drugs in a non-reckless way
explain the principles of voluntary/involuntary intoxication for the intoxication defence
intoxication is only a defence of the MR for the crime was not formed
- Kingston: involuntary intoxication not a defence if it was proved that D had the necessary intent when the offence was committed
Where D doenst realise the strength of the alcohol or drug he has taken, it doenst make the intoxication involuntary (Allen)
id D takes a non-dangerous drug (even though it hasn’t been specifically prescribed to him) it may be considered involuntary if he does so non-recklessly (Hardie)
explain the principles on making a drunken/intoxicated mistake
if the mistake is about amount of force needed to defend oneself it is not a defence (O’Grady, Hatton)
