Capacity Defences AO1 Flashcards
General rule for voluntary intoxication
If voluntarily intoxicated, no defence (exception of specific intent crimes e.g murder, s18 GBH
Basically, voluntarily drunk=reckless at a minimum
o’grady
Mistake induced by intoxication is no defence
When is involuntary intoxication a defence
For specific and basic intent crimes
Cases for voluntary intoxication (3)
DPP v Beard-Voluntary intoxication can be defence for specific intent crime.
D was so intoxicated MR not formed, so not guilty.(Raped a girl and suffocated her, got manslaughter instead as only requires recklessness)
Lipman-usually lessens charge rather than escaping liability if there is a fallback offence (thought he was being attacked by snakes high on LSD, killed his GF, but was guilty of manslaughter as no MR)
Gallagher-drunken intent is still intent (drunk for courage to kill)
When is voluntary intoxication not a defence, and examples and case
For basic intent crimes e.g battery assault ABH
DPP v Majewski-voluntarily intoxicated, got in fights, conviction upheld as was basic intent crimes
What type of defence is involuntary intoxication
Absolute-if proved, D acquitted
What does involuntary intoxication cover
Basic and specific intent crimes, provided MR isn’t formed
Kingston
Involuntary intoxication is a defence unless MR formed.
He was drugged, and abused a child and took photos. There was evidence of intention so was convicted.
Involuntary intoxication cases (2)
Kingston
Hardie-D took Valium, unaware it would affect behaviour, set fire to a wardrobe, therefore involuntary.
Intoxicated mistake
If D makes a mistake due to intoxication, it depends on what the mistake was as to whether the defence is available
E.g Lipman had taken LSD recklessly so no defen
Insanity
Act is voluntary, but does not understand nature of act or that it is legally wrong.
D has to prove he was insane on balance of probabilities
What case outlines rules on insanity?
M’Naghten
M’Naghten
D became obsessed with PM, decided to shoot him, missed and killed PM secretary.
Found he had extreme paranoia, so not guilty by reason of insanity.
3 stage criteria for insanity
Labouring under a defect of reason
Caused by a disease of the mind
And so did not understand the nature/quality of his act, or it was wrong
Defect of reason case
D must be unable to reason, not failure to reason.
Clarke-absentminded is not insane-she retained reason but just did not use it.
insanity does not apply to those who retain reason but do not use in moments of confusion or absentmindedness
Is disease of mind a legal or medical term? Temporary or permanent
Legal.
Both.
Disease of the mind
Any disease that producers a malfunctioning of the mind
Disease of the mind cases
Sullivan-epileptic fits can be insanity. Can be any part of body provided it effects the mind
Burgess-sleepwalking caused by an internal factor can be insanity
Hennessy-hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) stole a car, was caused by diabetes an internal cause
2 ways of proving-Did not know nature/quality of act
Unconsciousness/impaired consciousness
Conscious but does not understand/know what he is doing
Case for rule 3 of M’Naghten
R v Oye
D punched officer. Believed police were demonic and evil spirits. Found he had a psychotic episode, and so didn’t know the nature/quality of his act, so not guilty by reason of insanity
‘Did not know what he was doing was wrong’-case
Windle-knew nature/quality, and what he was doing was wrong. Said ‘I suppose I’ll hang for this’. So defence by reason of insanity was unavailable
Effect of pleading insane
Court may impose hospital/supervision order etc
