Capacity Defences AO3

Question 1

Intoxication
Inconsistent : issue

Answer 1

The law on intoxicated mistakes is very inconsistent

Question 2

Intoxication
Inconsistent : cause/example

Answer 2

• An intoxicated mistake about what D was doing was a defence for murder in Lipman
• An intoxicated mistake about the owner of a house consenting was allowed as a defence for criminal damage in Jaggard v Dickinson.
• But a mistake about needing to use force in O’Grady stopped D being able to use self defence.

Question 3

Intoxication
Inconsistent : consequence and evaluation

Answer 3

• creates uncertainty and surely an intoxicated D is less blameworthy if thinks he’s defending himself than if he kills for some other reason
• D can rely on intoxication for serious crimes like murder, so unfair as D cant rely on drunken mistake for self defence - even for minor crimes
• HOWEVER policy makes sure people are extra careful when taking intoxicating substances and stops people saying they felt they needed to use force just because they were drunk

Question 4

Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication confusing : issue

Answer 4

Involuntary intoxication can be a confusing concept

Question 5

Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication confusing : cause/example

Answer 5

• R v Allen, did not know the strength of the alcohol he was drinking. The court said intoxication must be completely involuntary and so he had no defence as he knew he was still drinking.
• But in Hardie, D took drugs that had unexpected effects on him.
  The court said this could be involuntary even though D knew he was taking drugs.

Question 6

Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication confusing : consequence/evaluation

Answer 6

• law commission recognises meaning of involuntary is unclear
  —> get rid of the Allen rule and create lots of different types of involuntary intoxication to handle different situations = law is more flexible and less contradictory
• HOWEVER, lots of different types of involuntary intoxication is confusing, Allen rule may be more positive as easier to have one rule of intoxication must be involuntary

Question 7

Insanity
Social stigma : issue

Answer 7

There is a lot of social stigma around called ‘insane’

Question 8

Insanity
Social stigma : cause/example

Answer 8

D is legally branded insane if they are found not guilty by reason of insanity; this is even the case if their conduct was caused by diabetes
(e.g. R V Hennessy)

Question 9

Insanity
Social stigma : consequence/evaluation

Answer 9

• law commission worries that that insanity an inappropriate label and it implies must be seen as ‘mental’ not physical so recommended :
  ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a medical condition’ - which should change the way the public view these defendants.
• HOWEVER changing the verdict may require changing elements and name of defence and Parliament and judges have been reluctant to do this since the M’Naghten Rules suggesting they prefer certainty in this defence.

Question 10

Insanity :
Jury: issue

Answer 10

Insanity cases may be expecting a lot from the jury

Question 11

Insanity
Jury: cause/example

Answer 11

Jury have the job of deciding if D is insane or not based on the evidence.
In the Yorkshire Ripper Case, all medical evidence suggested D had a mental disorder
But the jury denied him the defence anyway.

Question 12

Insanity:
Jury: consequence/evaluation

Answer 12

• may only be because jury’s get confused by complex and technical evidence
• jurors so terrified by horrors of case they miss evidence completely
• HOWEVER point of jury is to see view of ordinary member of public ,therefore it may be fair that D is judged on a lay person’s understanding of the evidence and the conscience of such people.