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
