chapter 7- Mental capacity defences Flashcards
M’Naghten (Rules)
-D suffered extreme paranoia and thought he was being persecuted by Tories
-Tried to kill Sir Robert Peel
-Found not guilty due to mental state
-Caused a public outcry leading to M’Naghten Rules
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules)
DPP v H
-Insanity is not a defence to offences of strict liability where no mental element is required
R v Clarke
-Left store without reason and couldn’t remember it
-Absent-minded due to diabetes and depression
-CoA said absent-mindedness didn’t amount to insanity
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- Defect of Reason)
R v Hennessy
-D didn’t take insulin for his diabetes then stole car without recollection
-Tried to plead non-insane automatism
-Judge ruled insanity was the correct defence
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- Defect of Reason)
R v Kemp
-D suffered from a disease affecting blood flow to brain
-During an episode attacked wife with a hammer
-Held ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’
-Upheld by CoA
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- Disease of the mind)
R v Sullivan
-During an epileptic fit injured an old man
-D given option of guilty plea or not guilty by insanity
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- Disease of the mind)
R v Coley
-D used cannabis and played violent video games
-Later attacked neighbour with knife
-Psychiatric evidence suggested cannabis brought on an episode
-Judge didn’t allow a defence of insanity as it was caused by intoxication
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- External factors and intoxication)
R v Quick
-D= nurse in a psychiatric hospital
-Assaulted a patient
-Taken his insulin but not eaten enough food for the amount
-Held to be an external factor and therefore not insanity
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- External factors and intoxication)
R v Oye
-D was throwing things at police
-Behaved oddly when arrested and punched woman
-D said police were demons
-Psychiatric evidence showed D was suffering from an episode
-Although he was conscious he didn’t know what he was doing
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- Not knowing the nature and quality of the act)
R v Windle
-D’s wife spoke about suicide
-D helped wife commit suicide
-Although he was mentally ill, he said he knew what he did was wrong
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- Knowing something is legally wrong)
R v Johnson
-D broke into neighbours and stabbed them
-Suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and hallucinations
-D knew what he was doing was legally wrong, even if he believed them to be morally correct at the time
(Insanity- M’Naghten Rules- Knowing something is legally wrong)
R v Sutcliffe
-D guilty of murders despite medical evidence of paranoid schizophrenia
-Attempted to use diminished responsibility
(Insanity evaluation)
Hill v Baxter
-D drove through a stop sign and hit a car
-No recollection of events prior
-Judge held that automatism only applies where there is an external cause
(Non-insane Automatism- external cause)
R v T
-D was raped
-3 days later took part in an assault
-Defence allowed as there’s evidence she was suffering from PTSD
(Non-insane Automatism- external cause)
Attorney-General’s Ref No.2 of 1992
-D was lorry driver who hit car and killed 2
-Said he was suffering from ‘driving without awareness’
-Condition only leads to partial loss of control
(Non-insane Automatism- external cause)
R v Bailey
-D didn’t eat enough after taking insulin and attacked a patient at work
-Trial judge ruled automatism wasn’t available
-CoA held this was wrong
-Sets out 3 situations:
1)Subjective recklessness- recklessness getting into an automatic state
2)Recklessness- automatic state caused by drink or drugs
3)Automatism- D doesn’t know that by doing the action they are likely to commit an offence
(Self-induced Automatism)
R v Hardie
-D took gfs prescribed pills to calm down
-He then set wardrobe on fire not knowing drugs affected him that way
-D hadn’t been reckless as Valium doesn’t usually cause this behaviour and therefore didn’t know it was likely
(Automatism- Basic Intent Offences)
DPP v Beard
-Where specific intent is an essential elements, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused in capable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration
-If drunk and incapable = not convicted
-It’s not a defence for basic intent offences as its considered being reckless
(Voluntary Intoxication)
DPP v Majewski
-D intoxicated and attacked pub landlord, then police
-Charged with assault
-As recklessness is sufficient mens rea for basic intent offences
(Voluntary Intoxication and basic intent offences)
R v Sheehan and Moore
-Ds drunk and threw petrol over homeless man and set fire to him
-Didn’t have the intent for murder as they were too drunk, so were convicted of manslaughter
(Intoxication- Negate mens rea)
A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
-D decided to kill
-Drank to give him courage and then killed her
-Conviction upheld due to intent formed before intoxication
(Intoxication- Negate mens rea)
R v Harris
-D was heavy drinker, decided to stop and then developed alcohol psychosis
-burnt down his house and fire endangered neighbours life
-CoA held mental disorder was caused by his previous voluntary intoxication, which is not the same as drunkenness
(Post Intoxication)
R v Kingston
-D’s coffee was drugged and invited to abuse a teenager
-D did this and then blackmailed
-HoL upheld conviction as he still intended to abuse the boy
-Whilst the drug made him lose inhibitions he still intended to abuse
(Involuntary intoxication)
R v Hattan
-D had 20 pints
-D found v dead from injuries from a sledgehammer
-D believed v hit him and he defended himself
-Convicted of murder= Upheld
-Mistake over how much force to use to stop an attack isn’t a defence to a charge of a specific or basic intent
(Intoxication- Mistake)
