Capacity Offences Flashcards by Bethany Harries

What are the three capacity defences?

Insanity
Automatism
Intoxication

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What type of defence is insanity?

Insanity is a special defence where the defendant will be found not guilt by reason of insanity

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What can the judge decide if insanity is successful?

The judge can choose one of the three:
1. Hospital Order
2. Supervision Order
3. Absolute Discharge

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What rules does insanity follow?

M’Naghten rules

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What is the definition of insanity?

Definition of Insanity = The defendant must be labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind to not know the nature and quality of the act what he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What are the summary elements of insanity?

Summary Elements =
- Defect of Reasoning
- Result of Disease of the Mind
- Did not understand what they were doing or that it was wrong

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What is a defect of reasoning?

Defect of Reason =
- Powers of reasoning must be impaired
- This must be more than absent mindedness or confusion
- They must not be capable of reasoning

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What is a disease of the mind?

A result of the disease of the mind =
- Defect of reason must be due to disease of the mind
- This is a legal definition and not a medical definition
- This can be a mental disease or a physical one
- The disease must affect the mind
- The disease can be any part of the body as long as it effects the minds

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What must the defect of reasoning cause?

Caused the defendant to not know what he was doing was wrong
- This can occur in two different ways =
- They are in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness /
- They are conscious but due to their medical condition, they do not understand what they are doing
- The defendant can know the nature of their act, because they may not know it was wrong

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What are the two types of insanity?

Organic Insanity = The brain has been damaged by a physical cause such as epilepsy or a degenerative disease
Functional Insanity = There is no organic reason for the damage to the brain

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = Can the defendant use intoxication as a defence of insanity?

Voluntary intoxication and insanity =

If it is an external factor, they cannot use insanity
If the defendant voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance which leads to temporary psychosis, it is not a defence of insanity as it is an external factor

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Insanity) = What are the eleven key cases for insanity?

M’Naghten (1843)
R v Clarke (1972)
R v Kemp (1956)
R v Sullivan (1989)
R v Hennessey (1989)
R v Burgess (1991)
R v Quick (1973)
R v Coley (2013)
R v Oye (2013)
R v Windle (1952)
R v Johnson (2007)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Automatism) = What is the definition of automatism?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

(Automatism) = What are the two types of automatism?

Insane Automatism
Non-Insane automatism

(Automatism) = What is non-insane automatism?

The AR of the offence was not voluntary
There was no MR due to automatism
The cause of lack of control is external
Complete defence and is not guilty

(Automatism) = What is self-induced automatism?

When the defendant knows that their conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state, then if they knew the risks then the defence is only available for specific intent crimes.
If the response was unanticipated then it can be used for basic and specific intent crimes

(Automatism) = What is insane automatism?

This is where the cause of the automatism is because of a disease of the mind under the rules of insanity and is normally not guilty by reason of insanity

(Automatism) = What are examples of non insane automatism?

A blow to the head
An attack by a swarm of bees
Sneezing fit
Hypnotism

(Automatism) = What are the five key cases of automatism?

Hill v Baxter (1958)
R v T (1990)
Attorney General’s Ref (No2 of 1992)
R v Bailey (1983)
R v Hardie (1984)

What is intoxication?

- Intoxication covers drugs, alcohol or other substances

Why is intoxication needed?

- This is policy to protect the public from crimes committed while intoxicated, there needs to be a balance of rights to protect the victim as well as the defendant

What is needed for intoxication?

- The defendant must be so intoxicated that they are incapable of forming the MR

What factors need to be considered for intoxication?

1. Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary 2. Whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent

Can the defendant rely on a mistake?

- They can use the defence depending on what the mistake was about - A specific intent crime: The mistake means they do not form the MR - Basis Intent: No defence The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 = The defendant cannot rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced

What happens if it was an involuntarily intoxicated?

Involuntarily Intoxication = - This covers when the defendant did not know they were taking intoxicated substances meaning they were intoxicated through no fault of their own - If the defendant did form the MR then they are guilty, even if they would not have formed the MR if they were not intoxicated - If the defendant had formed the MR before becoming intoxicated then involuntary intoxication could not be a defence

What happens if the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated and committed a specific intent crime?

Specific Intent Crimes: - If the defendant is intoxicated, they may not be able to form the MR - A drunken intent is still intent so must prove that there was intent

What happens if the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated and committed a basic intent crime?

Basic Intent Crimes: - Voluntary intoxication is not available for basic intent crimes as becoming voluntarily drunk was reckless behaviour which meets the MR of the crime

What are the nine key cases of intoxication?

1. R v Sheehan and Moore (1975) 2. R v Lipman (1970) 3. AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963) 4. DPP v Majewski (1977) 5. R v Allen (1988) 6. R v Kingston (1994) 7. R v O’Grady (1987) 8. R v Hatton (2005) 9. Jaggard v Dickinson (1980)