capacity defences - topic 16 Flashcards
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?
- defect of reason
- disease of mind
- D doesn’t know the nature and quality of his act or that it is wrong
- comes from the M’naghten case
Defect of reason: what is the importance of R v Clarke?
the defect of reason must be more than absent-minded or confusion
Disease of mind: what is the importance of:
R v Kemp
R v Sullivan
R v Hennessy
R v Burgess
- 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
What happens if an external factor makes D not know the nature and quality of the act? (insanity)
It does not amount to a disease of the mind and so the defence of insanity doesn’t apply, R v Quick
what is the position where D voluntarily takes an intoxication substance and this causes a temporary psychotic episode? R v Coley (insanity)
D cannot use the defence of insanity because the intoxicating substance is an external factor
Not knowing the nature or quality of the act (insanity):
what is the importance of the cases:
R v Windle
R v Johnson
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
what is the burden and standard of proof for insanity?
beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant has to prove insanity
what options are open to a judge if D is found not guilty by virtue of insanity
- a hospital order
- a supervision order
- an absolute discharge
how was automatism defined in Bratty v AG for Northern Island?
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
what is the difference between insane and insane automatism?
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.
give some examples of non-insane automatism
- a blow to the head
- an attack by a swarm of bees
- a sneezing fit
- hypnotism
- the effect of taking a drug
what three things must be established before you can plead automatism?
caused by an external factor
led to complete loss of control
not self induced
why was D not able to successfully plead automatism in Broome v Perkins?
D could exercise some voluntary control over his movements and so automatism wasn’t available
Automatism
what was the example of an external factor in the following cases:
Hill v Baxter
R v Quick
Hill v Baxter - swarm of bees
R v Quick - insulin
can you rely on automatism if it was self induced? R v Lipman
No
What does it mean that the D must have an absence of mens rea? (intoxication)
So intoxicated cannot form the mental aspect of the act committed
Give some examples of when a defendant may be found to be involuntarily intoxicated
spiked or prescription drugs
Intoxication
What was the significance of the following cases:
R v Kingston
R v Allen
R v Bailey
R v Hardie
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
What is the situation with voluntary intoxication?
it is a defence for specific intent crimes only
what are specific intent offences?
crimes that can only be committed with intention e.g. murder
What happened in DPP v Lipman?
DPP v Lipman - him and his girlfriend took LSD and whilst hallucinating he thought his girlfriend was a snake and killed her
What are basic intent offences?
offences which have no smaller offence underneath e.g. section 20
what happened in DPP v Majewski and was D able to plead voluntary intoxication?
D had a lot of alcohol and drugs and attacked a landlord.
Couldn’t plead voluntary intoxication because he committed basic intent offences
what is the burden and standard of proof with the defence of intoxication?
D brings the defence forward and the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was not voluntarily intoxicated
