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.
R v Johnson (2007)
Example of: D understood his act was legally wrong.
Facts: D was schizophrenic and stabbed neighbour. D understood legal wrong of his conduct and was found guilty of wounding with intent.
What are the three options for a D who successfully proves insanity?
1) a hospital order (with or without time restrictions)
2) a supervision order
3) an absolute discharge
What act have judges more options for what to do with someone who successfully proves insanity?
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
Provides judges with more options when dealing with someone who successfully pleads insanity.
If D has committed murder and successfully proves insanity what happens?
Indefinite hospital order.
Who gives permission that a D can leave an indefinite hospital order?
Home Secretary
Where does the defence of automatism come from?
Bratty v AG for NI (1963)
Bratty v AG for NI (1963)
Provides for the defence of automatism
What is automatism?
A defence to a criminal offence. Act done by muscles without control of the mind.
Or an act whilst unconscious-sleepwalking.
What are the two types of automatism?
Insane automatism-caused by disease of the mind
Non-insane automatism-cause is external.
What case demonstrates that external factors can be considered for a defence of automatism?
R v T (1990)
Facts: 3 days after being raped D was involved in a robbery. Claimed automatism due to PTSD.
R v T (1990)
Principle: external factors can be considered by the jury for a defence of automatism.
Facts: 3 days after D was raped she took part in a robbery. She claimed PTSD made her act that way.
What case demonstrates that there must be a total loss of voluntary control for a defence of automatism?
AG ref no 2 of 1992
Facts: Lorry driver crashed on motorway killing 2 people. Claimed suffering from condition of ‘driving without awareness’. D not given defence of automatism.
AG ref no 2 of 1992
Principle: there has to be a total loss of voluntary control for a defence of automatism.
Facts: D was lorry driver who crashed on motorway killing 2 people. Claimed ‘driving without awareness’. Automatism defence not allowed.
What case demonstrates that the jury should be able to consider automatism as a defence to specific intent offences?
R v Bailey (1983)
Facts: Diabetic failed to eat enough after taking insulin. D hit V with iron bar and charged with s18 OAPA-a specific intent offence.
R v Bailey (1983)
Principle: the jury should be able to consider automatism as a defence to a specific intent offence.
Facts: Diabetic failed to eat enough after taking insulin. D hit V with iron bar and charged with s18 OAPA-a specific intent offence.
For what two reasons is the law on intoxication public policy based?
Intoxication is a major factor of many crimes.
If intoxication were always to be a defence then victims’ rights would not be protected.
What Act and section provides that a D cannot rely on voluntary intoxication as a defence to a crime?
s76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
s76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Provides that D can not rely on ‘any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced’.
What are specific intent offences?
These offences have intent only as the mens rea. e.g. murder
What are basic intent offences?
These have recklessness as part of the mens rea. e.g. s47 and 20 OAPA 1861
What case demonstrates that if D is so intoxicated they cannot form an intent for the offence they will be charged with a lesser offence?
Sheehan and Moore (1975)
Facts: D’s were drunk and set fire to a homeless person. The question was had they formed a mens rea. D’s convicted o unlawful act manslaughter.
Sheehan and Moore (1975)
Principle: that if D is too intoxicated to form an intent for the offence they may be charged with a basic intent offence.
Facts: D’s were drunk and set fire to a homeless person. Prosecution had to establish that D’s formed the mens rea for murder but couldn’t. D’s found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
What case demonstrates that if D cannot be proven to have mens rea for specific intent offence then they may be charged with basic intent offence?
R v Lipman (1970)
Facts: D and girlfriend took LSD. Whilst on ‘trip’ D shoved blanket down GF throat. He was charged with both offences of murder and unlawful act manslaughter. Found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
R v Lipman (1970)
Principle: that cases where D was voluntarily intoxicated and committed a specific intent offence. D may be charged with 2 offences.
Facts: D and GF took LSD. D shoved sheet down GF throat. D charged with murder and unlawful act manslaughter. D convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.
What case demonstrates that intoxication cannot be a defence of the offence was pre-meditated before intoxication?
AG for NI v Gallagher (1963)
Facts: D decided to kill wife and got drunk just beforehand for courage. D charged with murder despite claiming not to have mens rea during murder.
AG for NI v Gallagher (1963)
Principle: D can be convicted of offence if they developed mens rea before intoxication.
Facts: D planned on killing wife and got drunk just beforehand for courage. D charged with murder despite claiming not to have had mens rea.
What case demonstrates that basic intent offences do not get a defence of voluntary intoxication?
R v Majewski (1977)
Facts: D had lots of alcohol and drugs and attacked the landlord of the pub he was drinking at then attacked the police who were called. D found guilty of the offences as they were basic intent.
R v Majewski (1977)
Principle: that offences of basic intent cannot have a defence of voluntary intoxication.
Facts: D had lots of alcohol and drugs and attacked the landlord of the pub he was drinking at then attacked the police who were called. D found guilty of the offences as they were basic intent.
What case demonstrates that involuntary intoxication is not a defence to an offence of specific intent if D had already formed a mens rea?
R v Kingston (1994)
Facts: D was paedo. And invited to house where drink was drugged by blackmailer. D was filmed abusing a boy.
R v Kingston (1994)
Principle: that involuntary intoxication cannot be a defence against an offence of specific intent where mens rea was already formed.
Facts: D was paedo. And invited to house where drink was drugged by blackmailer. D was filmed abusing a boy.
What case demonstrates that D cannot rely on a defence of self-defence upon a mistake of fact which has been induced by voluntary intoxication?
R v O’Grady (1987)
Facts: D kills friend after a heavy drinking session with a glass ashtray. D found guilty of manslaughter.
R v O’Grady (1987)
Principle: D cannot rely on a defence of self-defence upon a mistake of fact which has been induced by voluntary intoxication.
Facts: D kills friend after a heavy drinking session with a glass ashtray. D found guilty of manslaughter.
What case provides an exception to the rule of a defence of mistaken fact not being eligible for certain offences?
And why?
Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)
Facts: D drunkenly accessed incorrect address thinking that it was her friends and her friend wouldn’t mind. D NOT guilty of criminal damage.
Why?: s5 Criminal Damages Act 1971 allows an honest belief that the person to whom property belongs would have consented to the damage.
Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)
Principle: that offences of criminal damage can have a defence of intoxicated mistake as long as it is property damage.
Facts: D drunkenly accessed incorrect address thinking that it was her friends and her friend wouldn’t mind. D NOT guilty of criminal damage.
What act and section gives provisions that property damage can have a defence of intoxicated mistake?
What case did this have an effect on?
s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971
Case Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)
