Capacity Defences Of Insanity And Intoxication

Question 1

General rule for voluntary intoxication

Answer 1

If voluntarily intoxicated, no defence (exception of specific intent crimes e.g murder, s18 GBH

Basically, voluntarily drunk=reckless at a minimum

Question 2

O’Grady

Answer 2

Mistake induced by intoxication is no defence

Question 3

When is involuntary intoxication a defence

Answer 3

For specific and basic intent crimes

Question 4

Cases for voluntary intoxication (3)

Answer 4

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)

Question 5

When is voluntary intoxication not a defence, and examples and case

Answer 5

For basic intent crimes e.g battery assault ABH

DPP v Majewski-voluntarily intoxicated, got in fights, conviction upheld as was basic intent crimes

Question 6

What type of defence is involuntary intoxication

Answer 6

Absolute-if proved, D acquitted

Question 7

What does involuntary intoxication cover

Answer 7

Basic and specific intent crimes, provided MR isn’t formed

Question 8

Kingston

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Involuntary intoxication cases (2)

Answer 9

Kingston

Hardie-D took Valium, unaware it would affect behaviour, set fire to a wardrobe, therefore involuntary.

Question 10

Intoxicated mistake

Answer 10

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 defence

Question 11

Insanity

Answer 11

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

Question 12

What case outlines rules on insanity?

Answer 12

M’Naghten

Question 13

M’Naghten

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

3 stage criteria for insanity

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Defect of reason case

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Is disease of mind a legal or medical term? Temporary or permanent

Answer 16

Legal.

Both.

Question 17

Disease of the mind

Answer 17

Any disease that producers a malfunctioning of the mind

Question 18

Disease of the mind cases

Answer 18

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

Question 19

2 ways of proving-Did not know nature/quality of act

Answer 19

Unconsciousness/impaired consciousness

Conscious but does not understand/know what he is doing

Question 20

Case for rule 3 of M’Naghten

Answer 20

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

Question 21

‘Did not know what he was doing was wrong’-case

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Effect of pleading insane

Answer 22

Court may impose hospital/supervision order etc

Question 23

What case defines Automatism

Answer 23

Bratty v AG for NI

An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind (external cause-unlike insanity which is an internal cause)

Question 24

2 types of automatism

Answer 24

Insane automatism

Non-insane automatism

Question 25

Insane automatism

Answer 25

Same as insanity

Question 26

Non insane automatism

Answer 26

Cause is an external one, D has not done AR voluntarily, so no MR

Question 27

Non insane automatism requirements (3)

Answer 27

1. involuntary act (Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland
2. caused by external factor (if internal=insane automatism(insanity)
3. must not be self induced automatism

Question 28

Case for non-insane automatism

Answer 28

R v Whooley
D was a lorry truck driver who had a sneezing fit losing control of car. Defence of automatism allowed as was AR involuntary, so no MR

Question 29

Position of diabetes in automatism

Answer 29

Hypoglycaemia-taken too much insulin-so external=non-insane automatism (Quick)
Hyperglcaemia-too much sugar in blood, not enough insulin-internal-insanity/insane automatism (Hennessy)