capacity defences - topic 16

Question 1

what are the 3 requirements D must prove on the balance of probabilities before they can be found not guilty of insanity and where do these requirements come from?

Answer 1

1. defect of reason
2. disease of mind
3. D doesn’t know the nature and quality of his act or that it is wrong
   - comes from the M’naghten case

Question 2

Defect of reason: what is the importance of R v Clarke?

Answer 2

the defect of reason must be more than absent-minded or confusion

Question 3

Disease of mind: what is the importance of:
R v Kemp
R v Sullivan
R v Hennessy
R v Burgess

Answer 3

• R v Kemp: the disease can be a mental or physical one which affects the mind
• R v Sullivan: Epilepsy comes in the rules of insanity
• R v Hennessy: high blood sugar levels because of diabetes is classed as insanity because sugar affects the mind
• R v Burgess: in some instances sleep-walking is within the legal definition of insanity

Question 4

What happens if an external factor makes D not know the nature and quality of the act? (insanity)

Answer 4

It does not amount to a disease of the mind and so the defence of insanity doesn’t apply, R v Quick

Question 5

what is the position where D voluntarily takes an intoxication substance and this causes a temporary psychotic episode? R v Coley (insanity)

Answer 5

D cannot use the defence of insanity because the intoxicating substance is an external factor

Question 6

Not knowing the nature or quality of the act (insanity):
what is the importance of the cases:
R v Windle
R v Johnson

Answer 6

R v Windle - you can use the defence of insanity if you do not know what you did was wrong legally not morally wrong.
R v Johnson - Can’t use the defence if you knew it was legally wrong

Question 7

what is the burden and standard of proof for insanity?

Answer 7

beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant has to prove insanity

Question 8

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

Answer 8

• a hospital order
• a supervision order
• an absolute discharge

Question 9

how was automatism defined in Bratty v AG for Northern Island?

Answer 9

an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep-walking

Question 10

what is the difference between insane and insane automatism?

Answer 10

Insane automatism = the cause of automatism is a disease of the mind within the M’naghten rules.
Non-insane automatism = lack of control is external.

Question 11

give some examples of non-insane automatism

Answer 11

• a blow to the head
• an attack by a swarm of bees
• a sneezing fit
• hypnotism
• the effect of taking a drug

Question 12

what three things must be established before you can plead automatism?

Answer 12

caused by an external factor
led to complete loss of control
not self induced

Question 13

why was D not able to successfully plead automatism in Broome v Perkins?

Answer 13

D could exercise some voluntary control over his movements and so automatism wasn’t available

Question 14

Automatism
what was the example of an external factor in the following cases:
Hill v Baxter
R v Quick

Answer 14

Hill v Baxter - swarm of bees
R v Quick - insulin

Question 15

can you rely on automatism if it was self induced? R v Lipman

Answer 15

No

Question 16

What does it mean that the D must have an absence of mens rea? (intoxication)

Answer 16

So intoxicated cannot form the mental aspect of the act committed

Question 17

Give some examples of when a defendant may be found to be involuntarily intoxicated

Answer 17

spiked or prescription drugs

Question 18

Intoxication
What was the significance of the following cases:
R v Kingston
R v Allen
R v Bailey
R v Hardie

Answer 18

R v Kingston - if the prosecution can prove he or she had the MR he or she will be guilty of the offence whether specific or basic intent
R v Allen - not knowing the strength of the alcohol your drinking is not evidence of involuntary intoxication
R v Bailey - Jury should consider automatism as a defence to specific intent offences
R v Hardie - D hadn’t been reckless and the jury should have been able to consider his defence to automatism

Question 19

What is the situation with voluntary intoxication?

Answer 19

it is a defence for specific intent crimes only

Question 20

what are specific intent offences?

Answer 20

crimes that can only be committed with intention e.g. murder

Question 21

What happened in DPP v Lipman?

Answer 21

DPP v Lipman - him and his girlfriend took LSD and whilst hallucinating he thought his girlfriend was a snake and killed her

Question 22

What are basic intent offences?

Answer 22

offences which have no smaller offence underneath e.g. section 20

Question 23

what happened in DPP v Majewski and was D able to plead voluntary intoxication?

Answer 23

D had a lot of alcohol and drugs and attacked a landlord.
Couldn’t plead voluntary intoxication because he committed basic intent offences

Question 24

what is the burden and standard of proof with the defence of intoxication?

Answer 24

D brings the defence forward and the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was not voluntarily intoxicated