Capacity Defences (P1)

Question 1

What are the three requirements that a defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities before they can be found not guilty by reason of insanity & where do they come from?

Answer 1

Under the M’naghten rules the D must prove that at the time of the conduct, he was suffering from a defect of reason, resulting from a disease of the mind and he did not know that the nature or quality of the act he was doing or that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

Question 2

R v Clarke (Defect of reason)

Answer 2

D went into a supermarket, picked up 3 items, put them in her bag and left without paying. She was charged with theft but her defence was that she had no recollection therefore no MR. She was suffering with diabetes and depression which caused absent-kindness. The trial judge said to plead insanity but she didn’t want that label. COA quashed the conviction and held that ‘defect of reason’ only applies for those who have a disease of the mind, not moments of confusion.

Question 3

What is the second part of the test? Insanity

Answer 3

Whether the D sufferers a disease of the mind which means an internal condition

Question 4

R v Kemp

Answer 4

D sufferers from the hardening of arteries which caused temporary memory loss. This condition comes under insanity.

Question 5

R v Sullivan

Answer 5

Doesn’t matter if the impairment was permanent or transient and intermittent.

Question 6

R v Hennessy

Answer 6

COA held that the diabetes affected minds, therefore is insanity

Question 7

R v Burgess

Answer 7

COA agreed sleepwalking is insanity

Question 8

What are the two ways in which the D may not know the nature and quality of the act ? Insanity

Answer 8

1. Because he or she is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness
2. When he or she is conscious but due to his or her mental condition he or she does not understand what they are doing

Question 9

R v Windle

Answer 9

‘I suppose they will hang me for this’ shows he knew he was legally wrong

Question 10

R v Johnson

Answer 10

Even though D was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia he knew what he was doing was wrong

Question 11

What is the burden and standard of proof in insanity?

Answer 11

Balance of probabilities and defence

Question 12

What options are open to a judge if the D is found not guilty by virtue of insanity?

Answer 12

1. A hospital order
2. A supervision order
3. An absolute order

Question 13

What is the definition of automatism as defined in Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland?

Answer 13

Any act done by the muscles without the control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or convulsion or an act done by a person if not unconscious of what he is doing’

Question 14

What things can automatism be used for?

Answer 14

-a blow to the head
-an attack by a swarm of bees
-a sneezing fit
-hypnotism
-the effect of taking a drug, which might raise issues of self induced automatism

Question 15

What three things must be established before a defendant can successfully plead automatism?

Answer 15

-There must be a total loss of voluntary control
-Caused by an external factor
-That is not self induced

Question 16

Broom v Perkins

Answer 16

There was evidence that had shown sufficient control over his actions to be able to brake and steer his own car

Question 17

External factor in R v Quick

Answer 17

Diabetes (hypoglycaemic state)

Question 18

External factor in R v T

Answer 18

Had been raped, suffered from PTSD

Question 19

External factor in R v Narbrough

Answer 19

Sexually abused as a child

Question 20

External factor in R v Lowe

Answer 20

Being woken up suddenly

Question 21

External factor in R v Bilton and R v Ecott

Answer 21

Raped girls while sleepwalking

Question 22

External factor in R v Lipman

Answer 22

State on self-induced drugs

Question 23

External factor in R v Bailey

Answer 23

Reckless to failing to eat after taking insulin

Question 24

Who is the burden of proof on in automatism?

Answer 24

Prosecution

Question 25

Standard of proof Automatism

Answer 25

Beyond reasonable doubt

Question 26

What sort of offence is involuntary intoxication a defence for?

Answer 26

Specific and basic intent crimes as long as he didn’t form the required men’s rea

Question 27

Give examples of when involuntary intoxication may occur

Answer 27

If the D was been spiked without his knowledge, the D has taken prescription drugs, unexpected reaction to soporific drugs, took intoxicating drug under duress

Question 28

R v Kingston

Answer 28

Still had required men’s rea even though he was spiked, therefore cannot use it as a defence

Question 29

R v Allen

Answer 29

He drunk it knowing it was wine voluntarily, strength does not matter

Question 30

Why was R v Bailey guilty but R v Hardie not guilty?

Answer 30

R v Bailey was reckless in taking the insulin and knew the risks, R v Hardie took Valium to calm himself down, it affected him unusually

Question 31

What is the general rule re voluntary intoxication as established in DPP v Majewski?

Answer 31

Voluntary intoxication could not provide a defence for crimes of basic intent

Question 32

What is a specific intent crime?

Answer 32

A crime in which the MR is intent only, eg, murder, section 18 etc

Question 33

What is a basic intent crime?

Answer 33

A crime in which the MR includes recklessness too, eg, involuntary manslaughter, section 20 etc

Question 34

R v Richardson and Irwin

Answer 34

Convictions were quashed as they were not automatically guilty due to their intoxication and therefore, recklessness. The COA stated that the test to decide if they were reckless is if the leaves had foreseen the circumstances had they not been drinking

Question 35

AG for N v Gallagher

Answer 35

The D wanted to kill his wife so bought a knife and a bottle of whisky for ‘Dutch courage’. Once intoxicated he killed her, he had the men’s rea so guilty.