Capacity Defences Flashcards
What case provides the defence of insanity?
M’Naghten (1843)
Facts: D suffered from paranoia and believed Tories were out to get him. Killed a politicians secretary. D was committed to mental hospital.
What is the name given to the rules regarding insanity?
The M’Naghten rules
What case do the M’Naghten rules come from?
M’Naghten (1843)
What are the M’Naghten rules?
1) in all cases, every man is presumed to be sane
2) D must be suffering from a ‘disease of the mind’ such that he
- cannot understand the nature of his act
- or even know he was doing it
What three elements derive from ten M’Naghten rules?
1) defect of reason
2) must be result of disease of mind
3) Caused D to not know nature of conduct or even that they were doing wrong
What type of offence can a defence of insanity NOT be used?
Why?
Strict Liability
As there is no requirement for mental element in strict liability.
What case is an example that insanity cannot be a defence to an offence of strict liability?
DPP v H (1997)
Facts: D was drink driving.
What case supports the principle that a ‘defect of reasoning’ must be proven for a defence of insanity?
R v Clarke (1972)
Facts: D ‘accidentally’ loaded mince meat into her shopping bags and left without paying. Claimed her diabetes and depression caused absent mindedness.
R v Clarke (1972)
Principle: That there must be a ‘defect of reasoning’ for a defence of insanity.
Facts: D loaded mince meat into her shopping bags by accident and didn’t pay. Claimed absent mindedness caused by depression. No defence was allowed.
Disease of the mind-
What case demonstrates that a physical disease that affects the mind can be classed as insanity?
R v Kemp (1956)
Facts: D had hardened arteries leading to his brain causing D moments of loss of consciousness in which one time he assaulted his wife with a hammer. D found not guilty by reason of insanity.
R v Kemp (1956)
Principle: disease of the mind-That disease of the mind can be physical as long as it affects the mind.
Facts: D had hardened arteries that affected his brain and gave him episodes of loss of consciousness in which one time he assaulted his wife. D not guilty by reason of insanity.
What case demonstrates that epilepsy can contribute to a ‘disease of the mind’ regarding a defence of insanity?
R v Sullivan (1984)
Facts: D suffered epilepsy and was known to injure those around him when in a fit. He injured an 80 year old during one of his fits. D not guilty by reason of insanity.
R v Sullivan (1984)
Principle: that epilepsy can contribute to a ‘disease of the mind’ regarding the defence of insanity.
Facts: D suffered from epilepsy and injured an 80 year old during one of his fits.
What case demonstrates that diabetes can contribute to a defence of insanity?
What case result does it contrast with?
R v Hennessy (1989)
Facts: D was a diabetic and hadn’t taken insulin. He was seen driving a car illegally but had no recollection. D NOT guilty of the offence by reason of insanity.
This finding contrasts with R v Quick (1973) where D had defence of automatism.
R v Hennessy (1989)
Demonstrates: Diabetes can contribute to insanity.
Facts: D was diabetic who hadn’t taken insulin. Seen driving a car illegally but had no recollection. D NOT guilty of the offence by reason of insanity.
What case demonstrates that an external factor rather than just the disease doesn’t necessarily mean insanity but automatism instead?
R v Quick (1973)
Facts: D was diabetic who had taken insulin but also not eaten meaning his blood sugar levels was low. He attacked a patient at his hospital. D NOT guilty by reason of automatism.
Because episode was caused by drug-insulin
R v Quick (1973)
Demonstrates: external factors come into automatism rather than insanity.
Facts: D was diabetic and had low blood sugar levels due to insulin intake. D attacked patient at his hospital. D NOT guilty due to automatism.
Held that drug was external factor that caused his episode.
What case demonstrates that voluntary intoxication does not qualify for insanity if the D commits an offence?
R v Coley (2013)
Facts: D aged 17 took cannabis and attacked neighbours with a knife. D guilty of attempted murder. No defence of insanity.
R v Coley (2013)
Demonstrates: voluntary intoxication cannot constitute insanity if D commits offence.
Facts: D took cannabis and attacked neighbours with a knife. D guilty of attempted murder. No defence of insanity was allowed.
What case is an example that D didn’t know the nature or quality of their act?
R v Oye (2013)
Facts: D was behaving oddly, first in a cafe then at the police station after arrest including drinking water out the toilet. D punched policewoman in face. D NOT guilty by reason of insanity.
R v Oye (2013)
Example of: D not knowing nature or quality of conduct.
Facts: D acted oddly including drinking water out of a toilet. D punched policewoman in face and broke her jaw. D NOT guilty by reason of insanity.
What 2 cases demonstrate that D knowing their act is wrong legally means they are not entitled to a defence of insanity?
R v Windle (1952)-D gives wife 100 aspirins.
R v Johnson (2007)-D schizophrenic and stabbed neighbour.
R v Windle (1952)
Example of: D understood legal wrong of his actions.
Facts: D have his wife 100 aspirins as she talked of suicide. D uttered ‘I suppose they will hang me for this’ on arrest. D knew conduct was legally wrong and charged with murder.
