Criminal Defences Flashcards
Verdict if found to be insane
‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’ Hospital order (always for murder) Supervision and treatment order Guardship order Absolute discharge
Insanity: M’Naughten
D must be suffering from
- defect of reason (coming from a)
- disease of the mind (so that D either)
- does not know nature and quality of his act or D
- does not know what he is doing is wrong
Insanity: Clarke
Does not matter if only deprived of powers of reasoning temporarily as long as present at crime
- Defect of reasoning is more than just confusion or absent mindedness
(THE SYMPTOMS)
Insanity: Hennessy
Had not taken insulin so came from within- internal cause (can use insanity)
Insanity: Quick
Had taken insulin so did not come from within- external cause
(Cannot use insanity)
What can you use for disease of the mind
Malfunctioning of the mind Has to be INTERNAL that affect memory, reasoning, understanding - arteriosclerosis (thick arteries) - sleepwalking - hyperglycaemic - diabetes - psychopathy - bipolar
Insanity: D does not know nature and quality of act (Codere)
No idea what doing at all (unconscious/blacked out) or D was mistaken
- Unconscious/impaired consciousness
- sleep walking, epileptic - Conscious but does not understand/know what they are doing
- schizophrenia
Insanity: Johnson
D does not know act is LEGALLY wrong, doesn’t matter if they thought was morally right
Automatism: verdict if argued successfully
Not guilty
Automatism: define
Crime committed by an involuntary act caused by an external factor
Automatism: Bratty
Involuntary act is done by the muscles without any control by the mind (fit, reflex, seizure)
Automatism: AG Ref 2 1992
Loss of control must be total (no control at all)
Automatism: external factor
Automatic state must be caused by
- head injury
- hypnotism
- medication
- traumatic event
Automatism: Bailey
Did take their insulin so due to external factor: lack of food
Automatism: DPP v Majewski
Lipman
If basic intent and D knows risk of automated state- D has been reckless to commit basic intent offence
(So cannot use defence)
Lipman:
If specific intent depends if MR negated
- recklessness of autonomic state so definite basic intent
Self defence: verdict
If successful will be ‘not guilty’
Full and general defence
Self defence: Beckford
D must think threat is imminent (very soon- more so than assault)
- circum may justify pre-emptive strike
- subjective
Self defence: Gladstone Williams
It does not matter if D makes an honest mistake, jury can still find force necessary
Self defence: Bird
D does not have duty to retreat but if they have opportunity and fail to do so, jury can consider this and may decide force was not necessary
Self Defence: S76(3) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
When jury deciding what was proportionate- it’s as D believed circumstances to be
Self Defence: S76(7)(a) Criminal J & IA 2008
D not expected to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action
(Weigh up exact proportions in the heat of the moment)
Self Defence: S76(7)(b) Criminal J & IA 2008
If D did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, strong evidence that D took reasonable action