chapter 7- Mental capacity defences

Question 1

M’Naghten (Rules)

Answer 1

-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)

Question 2

DPP v H

Answer 2

-Insanity is not a defence to offences of strict liability where no mental element is required

Question 3

R v Clarke

Answer 3

-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)

Question 4

R v Hennessy

Answer 4

-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)

Question 5

R v Kemp

Answer 5

-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)

Question 6

R v Sullivan

Answer 6

-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)

Question 7

R v Coley

Answer 7

-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)

Question 8

R v Quick

Answer 8

-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)

Question 9

R v Oye

Answer 9

-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)

Question 10

R v Windle

Answer 10

-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)

Question 11

R v Johnson

Answer 11

-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)

Question 12

R v Sutcliffe

Answer 12

-D guilty of murders despite medical evidence of paranoid schizophrenia
-Attempted to use diminished responsibility
(Insanity evaluation)

Question 13

Hill v Baxter

Answer 13

-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)

Question 14

R v T

Answer 14

-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)

Question 15

Attorney-General’s Ref No.2 of 1992

Answer 15

-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)

Question 16

R v Bailey

Answer 16

-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)

Question 17

R v Hardie

Answer 17

-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)

Question 18

DPP v Beard

Answer 18

-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)

Question 19

DPP v Majewski

Answer 19

-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)

Question 20

R v Sheehan and Moore

Answer 20

-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)

Question 21

A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 21

-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)

Question 22

R v Harris

Answer 22

-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)

Question 23

R v Kingston

Answer 23

-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)

Question 24

R v Hattan

Answer 24

-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)

Question 25

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 25

-D drunk and went into a house she thought was her friends
-Couldn’t get in and broke in as she believed her friend would consent
-Divisional Court quashed conviction as Parliament asked the court to consider D’s actual state of belief
(Intoxication- An exception)