Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law 1g Offences, Defences, Confessions > Capacity Defences > Flashcards

Capacity Defences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Who is the burden of proof on for the defence of intoxication?

A

The prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D still had the necessary mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does the defence of intoxication depend on?

A

Whether D was voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated and whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

In which case was the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes made?

A

DPP V Majewski

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are specific intent crimes?

A

Crimes where the mens rea is only intention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are basic intent crimes?

A

When the mens rea is intention or recklessness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is voluntary intoxication?

A

When D has chosen to take the intoxicating substance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is involuntary intoxication?

A

Where D did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What does the case Sheehan and Moore say?

A

Where D is voluntarily intoxicated, D will have a defence to a specific intent crime of he is so intoxicated that he hasn’t got the mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What happened in Sheehan and Moore?

A

Ds was drunk and he threw petrol over a homeless man and set him on fire but they were too drunk to have the mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What does the case A-G for Northern Ireland V Gallagher say?

A

Where D had the necessary mens rea despite his voluntary intoxication then he is guilty of the specific intent crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What happened in A-G for Northern Ireland V Gallagher?

A

D bought a knife to kill his wife and a bottle of whisky to give him courage to carry out the murder. A drunken intent is still an intent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What does the case DPP V Majewski say?

A

For a basic intent crime voluntary intoxication is not a defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Why is voluntary intoxication not a defence for basic intent crimes?

A

D is seen as reckless for getting intoxicated in the first place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does the case Kingston say?

A

Involuntary intoxication won’t be a defence if D had the mens rea at the time of the offence eventhough D might not have committed the offence without the intoxication removing his inhibitions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happened in Kingston?

A

D was spiked then was charged with indecent assault on a teenage boy but he still had formed the mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What does the case Hardie say?

A

Involuntary intoxication will be a defence to basic intent and specific intent when D didn’t form the mens rea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What happened in Hardie?

A

D took Valium to calm down but instead he set fire to a wardrobe. He didn’t have the mens rea as he didn’t know Valium would make his behaviour unpredictable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What case are the rules of insanity based on?

A

M’Naghten

19
Q

What are the three elements which have to be proved for insanity?

A
  • that at the time of committing the offence, D had a defect of reason
  • this defect of reason was a result of a disease of the mind
  • and this defect of reason caused D not to know the nature and quality of his ac for not to know what he was doing was wrong
20
Q

What is the special verdict?

A

Not guilty by reason of insanity

21
Q

What does a defect of reason mean?

A

D was unable to reason at the time he acted

22
Q

What is not enough for a defect of reason?

A

Temporary absent-mindedness or confusion

23
Q

Which case is not a defect of reason?

A

Clarke

24
Q

What happened in Clarke?

A

D absent-mindedly took items from a supermarket

25
Q

What examples of diseases of the mind were given in Sullivan?

A

Mental diseases such as schizophrenia, paranoia and manic depression

26
Q

Which cases have physical diseases which are classed as diseases of the mind?

A
  • Kemp

* Sullivan

27
Q

What happened in Kemp?

A

D had narrowing arteries which reduced blood flow to the brain and caused lapses of consciousness and he attacked his wife during one

28
Q

What happened in Sullivan?

A

D hit V in an epileptic fit and epilepsy was said to be a disease of the mind

29
Q

When is it a disease of a mind?

A

When it’s caused by an internal factor

30
Q

What happened in Hennessy?

A

D was diabetic who failed to take insulin and lost control of his actions

31
Q

What happened in Burgess?

A

D was sleepwalking and hit V

32
Q

When can D use the defence of insanity when D knows the nature and quality of his act?

A

If he doesn’t know what he did was legally wrong

33
Q

What happened in Windle?

A

D showed he knew what he did was legally wrong by saying ‘I suppose they’ll hang me for this’

34
Q

What does automatism lead to?

A

An acquittal

35
Q

What must D have over his actions?

A

No voluntary control

36
Q

What is the case example of when D did have some control over his actions?

A

Attorney-General’s Reference

37
Q

What happened in Attorney-General’s Reference?

A

D killed two people when he crashed his lorry claiming he was in a trance like state

38
Q

What must D’s automatic state be caused by?

A

An external factor

39
Q

What happened in Quick?

A

D was a diabetic nurse who attached patients after he failed to eat after taking insulin which caused him to lose control of his actions

40
Q

What is self induced automatism?

A

When D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state

41
Q

When can’t D use the defence of self induced automatism?

A

If D has been reckless in getting into an automatic state or it’s caused by involuntary intoxication

42
Q

What are the case examples for self induced automatism?

A
  • Bailey

* DPP V Majewski

43
Q

What happens in Bailey?

A

D was aware that not eating after insulin would bring about an automatic state and uncontrolled conduct

Criminal Law 1g Offences, Defences, Confessions (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions