Capacity Defences (P1) Flashcards
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?
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.
R v Clarke (Defect of reason)
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.
What is the second part of the test? Insanity
Whether the D sufferers a disease of the mind which means an internal condition
R v Kemp
D sufferers from the hardening of arteries which caused temporary memory loss. This condition comes under insanity.
R v Sullivan
Doesn’t matter if the impairment was permanent or transient and intermittent.
R v Hennessy
COA held that the diabetes affected minds, therefore is insanity
R v Burgess
COA agreed sleepwalking is insanity
What are the two ways in which the D may not know the nature and quality of the act ? Insanity
- Because he or she is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness
- When he or she is conscious but due to his or her mental condition he or she does not understand what they are doing
R v Windle
‘I suppose they will hang me for this’ shows he knew he was legally wrong
R v Johnson
Even though D was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia he knew what he was doing was wrong
What is the burden and standard of proof in insanity?
Balance of probabilities and defence
What options are open to a judge if the D is found not guilty by virtue of insanity?
- A hospital order
- A supervision order
- An absolute order
What is the definition of automatism as defined in Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland?
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’
What things can automatism be used for?
-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
What three things must be established before a defendant can successfully plead automatism?
-There must be a total loss of voluntary control
-Caused by an external factor
-That is not self induced
Broom v Perkins
There was evidence that had shown sufficient control over his actions to be able to brake and steer his own car
External factor in R v Quick
Diabetes (hypoglycaemic state)
External factor in R v T
Had been raped, suffered from PTSD
External factor in R v Narbrough
Sexually abused as a child
External factor in R v Lowe
Being woken up suddenly
External factor in R v Bilton and R v Ecott
Raped girls while sleepwalking
External factor in R v Lipman
State on self-induced drugs
External factor in R v Bailey
Reckless to failing to eat after taking insulin
Who is the burden of proof on in automatism?
Prosecution
Standard of proof Automatism
Beyond reasonable doubt
What sort of offence is involuntary intoxication a defence for?
Specific and basic intent crimes as long as he didn’t form the required men’s rea
Give examples of when involuntary intoxication may occur
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
R v Kingston
Still had required men’s rea even though he was spiked, therefore cannot use it as a defence
R v Allen
He drunk it knowing it was wine voluntarily, strength does not matter
Why was R v Bailey guilty but R v Hardie not guilty?
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
What is the general rule re voluntary intoxication as established in DPP v Majewski?
Voluntary intoxication could not provide a defence for crimes of basic intent
What is a specific intent crime?
A crime in which the MR is intent only, eg, murder, section 18 etc
What is a basic intent crime?
A crime in which the MR includes recklessness too, eg, involuntary manslaughter, section 20 etc
R v Richardson and Irwin
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
AG for N v Gallagher
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.
