(Crim) Mental Capacity Defences Flashcards
Insanity: M’Naghten (1843)
Definition: M’Naghten Rules
1. D was suffering from a defect of reason
2. Caused by a disease of the mind so that D either
a) did not know the nature or quality of the act OR
b) did not know what they were doing was legally wrong
Insanity: R v Clarke (1972)
Defect Of Reason:
Woman was shoplifting and claimed she was depressed. Pleaded insanity however, changed plea to guilty to get out of hospitalisation.
Insanity: R v Kemp (1957)
Disease of the Mind:
D attacked his wife with hammer caused by arteriosclerosis. The condition effected his ability to reason and understand so it was insanity.
Insanity: R v Sullivan (1984)
Disease of the Mind:
D (an epileptic) attacked a neighbour during a fit. Epilepsy constitutes a disease of the mind. However, he changed his plea to guilty to avoid hospitalisation.
Insanity: R v Burgess (1991)
Disease of the Mind:
D attacked his girlfriend while sleepwalking. He tried to rely on automatism but judge ruled that the correct defence was insanity. Sleepwalking was an internal factor.
Insanity: Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963)
Disease of the Mind:
D gave V a lift. A “Blackness” came over D and strangled V. D had been suffering from psychomotor epilepsy. Epilepsy has to be a plea of insanity.
Insanity: R v Windle (1952)
Nature and Quality or Didn’t know was wrong:
D gave wife fatal dose of aspirin. “I Suppose they’ll hang me for this”. This proved he knew what he was doing was legally wrong. Unable to plead insanity.
Insanity: Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004)
Effect:
Act has made changes to the treatment of people deemed legally insane.
Automatism: Broome v Perkins (1987)
Total Loss Of Voluntary Control:
D was in hypoglycaemic state. Convicted of driving without due care and attention. He had not suffered a total loss of control. Plea not valid.
Automatism: R v Woolley (1997)
Total Loss Of Voluntary Control:
D caused an 8 car Pile-Up when his lorry crashed. D had a sneezing fit that stopped him controlling his lorry. Automatism was allowed.
Automatism: R v Quick (1973)
External Factor:
D was a nurse. Hypoglycaemic state, attacked a patient. Had been drinking. Condition was caused by external factors so automatism should have been left to the jury.
Automatism: R v T (1990)
External Factor:
D was charged with robbery and ABH. However, she had been raped a few days prior and she was suffering from PTSD. She was able to rely on automatism but the jury rejected her defence and found her guilty.
Automatism: R v Narbrough (2004)
External Factor:
D stabbed someone. He claimed that he had been sexually abused as a child and had PTSD. Judge said that the evidence was Inadmissible. No evidence could prove his PTSD
Automatism: R v Lowe (2005)
External Factor:
D killed his father when he woke D up while sleepwalking. Defence of automatism failed but he instead was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Automatism: R v Bilton (2005)
External Factor:
D raped V but claimed he was sleepwalking. Defence is not available for sexual assault/rape cases.
Automatism: R v Lipman (1970)
Self-Induced Automatism:
D and his girlfriend took LSD but D thought that she was a snake and strangled her and stuffed bed-sheets down her throat, killing her. Courts held that automatism not available if self-induced by drugs.
Automatism: Kay v Butterworth (1945)
Self-Induced Automatism:
D fell asleep at the wheel and ran into group of soldiers. D was working all night. High court ruled that his condition was self-induced as it’s his fault he didn’t sleep.
Intoxication: R v Sheehan & Moore (1975)
Absence of Mens Rea:
D x2 (drunk) poured petrol over a man and set him alight. Judge stated that “a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent”.
Intoxication: R v Kingston (1994)
Spiked Without knowledge:
D was a homosexual and a paedophile. Someone wanted to blackmail him so spiked his drink and set him up with a 15 year old boy in a room with a camera. D was successfully blackmailed and HoL upheld his conviction as the jury was still able to convict if he had formed the mens rea despite the drink.
Intoxication: R v Allen (1988)
Spiked Without knowledge:
D voluntarily drank red wine that was a lot stronger than he had realised. Lack of knowledge of the strength is not enough to render the intoxication involuntary.
Intoxication: R v Bailey (1983)
Taken Prescription Drugs:
Caused GBH on Ex-Girlfriends new boyfriend. Taken insulin but did not eat. If the side effects were unforeseen then Bailey would have received full acquittal.
Intoxication: R v Hardie (1984)
Unexpected Reaction to Soporific Drugs;
D took some Valium tablets to calm his nerves. Failed to have the usual effect that Valium does and D set fire to his flat. D was not reckless in taking the drug he was unaware of the reaction it would have.
Intoxication: DPP v Majewski (1977)
Voluntary Intoxication:
D had been drinking and taking drugs for hours he was involved in a fight. Charged with a number of assaults. D Claimed he could not remember anything from the night. HoL held that Voluntary intoxication cannot provide a defence for crimes of basic intent.
Intoxication: R v Heard (2007)
Basic Intent Crimes:
D was taken to hospital in a drunk and emotional state. At the hospital he rubbed his penis down a police officers thigh. Even though the crime is of basic intent it requires “Intentional Sexual Touching”. CoA upheld his conviction.
Intoxication: R v Richardson & Irwin (1999)
Basic Intent Crimes:
D (group) and V were fooling around on a balcony. Victim fell 10 feet to his (near) death. All D’s convicted of s. 20 GBH. CoA quashed convictions and said “They are not automatically guilty due to their intoxicants” (eg: if they were sober, would they have seen the risk?)
Intoxication: Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher (1963)
Dutch Courage:
D Wanted to kill his wife. Bought a knife and whiskey and stabbed her. Conviction for murder was upheld by the HoL. Formed Mens Rea at the relevant time.
