Criminal Incapacity Flashcards
Lipman
Voluntary Intoxication
D killed girlfriend while on LSD in the belief he was battling giant snakes
Held it would not make sense to take into account the facts that the D believed to exist as the court would with a normal defendant
Sheehan and Moore
Voluntary Intoxication
A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent
Specific Intent crimes: Question jury should ask themselves is not about capacity but about whether D did have the intention at the time?
Gallagher
Voluntary Intoxication
If the D gets drunk to give himself the dutch courage to do the crime, then he cannot rely on his self-induced drunkenness
Specific intent crimes
Murder Theft Wounding/GBH with intent Attempt Burglary with intent Robbery
Majewski (What is basic intent)
Voluntary Intoxication: Basic Intent
D assaulted police officers under influence of alcohol and drugs, claimed he blacked out
HL: D cannot rely on intoxication in regards to crimes of basic intent, even if it prevents him forming the MR of a crime, and it produces a condition akin to automatism.
Confirmed Basic Intent Crimes
Manslaughter Rape Sexual assault Assault Unlawful wounding Basic Criminal damage
Heard
Voluntary Intoxication: Test for specific/intent crimes
Crime is one of specific intent only where the mens rea requires regard to be had as to the consequences of the act
A crime of basic intent requires only proof of intention to do the AR
Richardson
Voluntary Intoxication: specific/basic intent divide
If D would foresee risk but for intoxication= basic intent
Therefore D is taken to be aware of anything that he would have been aware of if sober
A more subjective and specific test- more focused on the defendant rather than the type of crime
Kingston
Involuntary Intoxication
Normal rules of AR and MR apply
Bailey
Voluntary Consumption with unexpected effects
In crimes of basic intent, D cannot be guilty without prior fault unless he appreciated the risk he may become aggressive so as to be a danger to others before he became intoxicated
Hardie
Voluntary Consumption with unexpected effects
D took large dose of partner’s valium to calm him down.
Was not aware that in large doses valium’s sedative effect can be reversed
Under the influence of the valium he set fire to the flat with his girlfriend in it
Q to be put to the jury should be whether D appreciated the risk of aggression, and so therefore whether the taking of the drug itself was reckless?
Bratty (Non-Insane Automatism)
Non-insane Automatism
General rule per Denning
‘An act which is done by the muscles without any control of the mind’
Actions may be more complex than a mere spasm or reflex.
D becomes an automatant as a consequence of voluntary intoxication then the rules on intoxication will apply
Viscount Kilmuir: If the cause of the automatism is a disease of the mind then the rules on insanity will apply.
D bears the evidential burden
Once this is raised the prosecution must disprove it
Quick
Non-insane Automatism: ‘Impairment of Consciousness’
‘A malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect’
Coley, Harris and McGhee: ‘Impairment of consciousness’
Non-insane Automatism: ‘Impairment of Consciousness’
you only need an impairment of consciousness- not total loss
Broome v Perkins
Non-insane Automatism: Total Loss of Control
Diabetic experienced sudden, unexpected drop in blood pressure while driving, caused him to drive erratically, crash into another vehicle.
Only noticed damage to the car when he got home and had some sugar
Was held that there was still a degree of control during the journey home- had actually managed to make it home- therefore there was no defence of automatism
A-G’s Referece (No 2 of 1992)
Non-insane Automatism: Total Loss of Control
D driving long journey on motorway, crashed and killed 2 people.
Medical evidence showed he had entered a condition called ‘driving without awareness’
CA held that there was still a degree of control, so this condition was not automatism
Bingham
Non-insane Automatism: External Trigger
Diabetic accused of theft, said he was unaware of his actions because he had low blood sugar at the time
CA:
If the cause is an external factor e.g a sudden spike in insulin, then is non-insane
If the cause is an internal factor e.g failure to medicate the underlying condition then this can be classed as insanity
Hennessey (Non-Insane Automatism)
External Trigger
Trigger must be external
D had diabetes and had not been medicating, but was able to point to other causes such as stress, marital problems leading to depression, that led him to stealing a car.
Was held that these problems were likely to reoccur, and so therefore were not extraordinary enough to be capable of producing automatism
Non-Insane Automatism: D must not be to blame of external trigger, conflicting tests
Objective: Quick
Could the automatism have been reasonably foreseen?
Subjective: Bailey
Did D realise the risk?
There has not yet been tie breaker test that decides between the 2- so consider both!
Sodeman
Insanity: Burden of proof
If raised by D, then D must prove this on a balance of probabilities
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964
Insanity:
S4, 4A, 5
Lay down procedure for where D cannot stand trial:
Jury will simply consider whether D did the act without a question of fault
Pritchard
Insanity: Q of if D is fit to stand trial
Is D of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defence?
Can be comprehend the details of the evidence?
Robertson
Podola
Walls
Insanity: Where D will be fit to be tried
D was able to understand trial but may make bad decisions or challenges
Condition only made it more difficult to conduct the case
Court drew attention to range of aids of communication provided by the court
Sullivan (Insanity: Rationale for the special verdict)
Insanity: Rationale for the special verdict
Parallels the objective of the criminal system which is to protect society against the reoccurrence of dangerous conduct
Daniel McNaughten
Insanity: Elements of the defence
Per Lord Tindall
- Defect of reason
- Underlying Disease of the mind
- D must not know the nature and quality of the act OR must not know that the act is wrong
Clarke
Insanity: Defect of Reason
D charged with shoplifting as was absent minded and forgot to pay. This was not insanity.
D must loose the power to reason
Does not apply to a D who has the powers but fails to use them in full
Bratty (Insanity)
Disease of the Mind:
Any mental disorder that has manifested itself in violence and is prone to reoccur
Kemp
Insanity: Disease of the Mind
D struck wife with hammer for no apparent reason. Was found to have a physical condition of hardening of the arteries
This was held to be disease of the mind as it was capable of affecting the mind
Burgess
Insanity: Disease of the mind
Can arise from a single occurrence
Violence caused by a sleepwalker
Held a disorder, with an internal trigger that was not prone to reoccur could still be a disease of the mind
Hennessey (Insanity)
Problems with disease of the mind element
Lord Lane: Admitted the rules are out of date but their main function is to prevent automatism being used where there is a risk the behaviour could reoccur
Windle
Insanity: D does not know the act is wrong
Does he know he is acting contrary to law?
Too harsh?
Rules out a number of people suffering serious mental illness that should not be responsible, but know that there is a rule against it
Intoxication problem q structure
Problem Q structure:
- is the act voluntary?
- Is the crime charged one of specific or basic intent?
- If basic intent, is it a dangerous drug?
Useful Law report for intoxication
Law Com. 314 Intoxication and Criminal Liability (2009)
Law Comm: Voluntary Intoxication
In these cases the courts should go beyond the normal legal principle in order to find a balance with the rule of policy that reflects D’s fault
Majewski:Rationales for specific and basic intent
Lord Russell: The act of self-intoxication can be seen as an act of recklessness as regards to possible consequences
Therefore a recklessness condition that would shave to be satisfied by a sober person foreseeing a specific risk of injury is already satisfied when that person is intoxicated.
Accepts that the law is illogical
It represents a more policy based compromise between complete disregard for the condition caused by intoxication and complete clearance of guilt based on it’s effect on the D’s actual state of mind at the time.
The purpose of the distinction is to ensure D will be convicted of something
Majewski: Test for the specific/ basic intent divide
Working distinction is between offences requiring intention (specific intent) and those satisfied by recklessness (basic intent)
3 rationales for the basic/ specific intent divide
- Prior Recklessness
- Would D foresee risk but for intoxication
- Policy Over Logic
Mistakes and voluntary intoxication: Conflicting statutes
1.Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s76(5)
D who pleads self defence may not rely on any mistaken belief as to circumstances if this belief was attributable to voluntarily induced intoxication
- Criminal Damage Act 1971 s5(3)
Mistaken belief in consent of an owner may excuse a D charged with a basic intent crime of criminal damage
Impossible to reconcile these
Coley, Harris and McGhee
‘Total Loss of control’
Cannot have total loss of control where the D has fault in inducing the condition
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
Abolished Compulsory hospitalisation for insanity
Sullivan (Insanity: Disease of the mind)
Mental illness does not have to be in the medical sense, but any condition which affects the mind and its faculties: Reason Memory Understanding Can be transient or permanent
Ashworth (Rationale of the Insanity Defence)
A fundamental presumption of the criminal law is that the defendant is ‘normal’. Therefore where the defendant is not normal the system cannot apply to him.
Law Comm (2013) reccomendations about insanity: ‘disease of the mind’
suggested a move to a defence of ‘not criminally responsible’ by reason of a recognised medical condition’ in order to address this issue in order to address fairer labelling
