Capacity Defences Flashcards
Who is the burden of proof on for the defence of intoxication?
The prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D still had the necessary mens rea
What does the defence of intoxication depend on?
Whether D was voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated and whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent
In which case was the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes made?
DPP V Majewski
What are specific intent crimes?
Crimes where the mens rea is only intention
What are basic intent crimes?
When the mens rea is intention or recklessness
What is voluntary intoxication?
When D has chosen to take the intoxicating substance
What is involuntary intoxication?
Where D did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance
What does the case Sheehan and Moore say?
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
What happened in Sheehan and Moore?
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
What does the case A-G for Northern Ireland V Gallagher say?
Where D had the necessary mens rea despite his voluntary intoxication then he is guilty of the specific intent crime
What happened in A-G for Northern Ireland V Gallagher?
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
What does the case DPP V Majewski say?
For a basic intent crime voluntary intoxication is not a defence
Why is voluntary intoxication not a defence for basic intent crimes?
D is seen as reckless for getting intoxicated in the first place
What does the case Kingston say?
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
What happened in Kingston?
D was spiked then was charged with indecent assault on a teenage boy but he still had formed the mens rea
What does the case Hardie say?
Involuntary intoxication will be a defence to basic intent and specific intent when D didn’t form the mens rea
What happened in Hardie?
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
What case are the rules of insanity based on?
M’Naghten
What are the three elements which have to be proved for insanity?
- 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
What is the special verdict?
Not guilty by reason of insanity
What does a defect of reason mean?
D was unable to reason at the time he acted
What is not enough for a defect of reason?
Temporary absent-mindedness or confusion
Which case is not a defect of reason?
Clarke
What happened in Clarke?
D absent-mindedly took items from a supermarket
What examples of diseases of the mind were given in Sullivan?
Mental diseases such as schizophrenia, paranoia and manic depression
Which cases have physical diseases which are classed as diseases of the mind?
- Kemp
* Sullivan
What happened in Kemp?
D had narrowing arteries which reduced blood flow to the brain and caused lapses of consciousness and he attacked his wife during one
What happened in Sullivan?
D hit V in an epileptic fit and epilepsy was said to be a disease of the mind
When is it a disease of a mind?
When it’s caused by an internal factor
What happened in Hennessy?
D was diabetic who failed to take insulin and lost control of his actions
What happened in Burgess?
D was sleepwalking and hit V
When can D use the defence of insanity when D knows the nature and quality of his act?
If he doesn’t know what he did was legally wrong
What happened in Windle?
D showed he knew what he did was legally wrong by saying ‘I suppose they’ll hang me for this’
What does automatism lead to?
An acquittal
What must D have over his actions?
No voluntary control
What is the case example of when D did have some control over his actions?
Attorney-General’s Reference
What happened in Attorney-General’s Reference?
D killed two people when he crashed his lorry claiming he was in a trance like state
What must D’s automatic state be caused by?
An external factor
What happened in Quick?
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
What is self induced automatism?
When D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state
When can’t D use the defence of self induced automatism?
If D has been reckless in getting into an automatic state or it’s caused by involuntary intoxication
What are the case examples for self induced automatism?
- Bailey
* DPP V Majewski
What happens in Bailey?
D was aware that not eating after insulin would bring about an automatic state and uncontrolled conduct
