DEFENCES Flashcards
Bratty v Attorney General for Norther Ireland
(Definition)
Automatism: an act which is done by the muscles without control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action, or convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or done whilst sleep-walking.
Attorney General Reference No 2 1991
(Requirement: complete loss of control)
Someone had been driving for six hours and this put them in an automatic state of mind. They argued that this shouldn’t put them in a position where they would be liable for the accident.
The driver was able to steer, to brake and to accelerate - they retained some control of their body which enabled them to keep the vehicle going. So it wouldn’t suffice for a defence of automatism.
The defendant has to be entirely separate in body and mind. The ability to do somethings and not others will not suffice.
Hennessy
The defendant suffered from diabetes but had failed to take his medication. This is an internal cause because it is a disease. This is internal and therefore insanity. Legally, diabetes is a form of insanity. Hyperglycaemia.
Quick
the defendant had taken too much insulin but has taken it wrongly or it has an adverse affect on them…this is an external cause because it’s the body’s reaction to medication which has made his body and mind separate…and therefore it is automatism. Hypoglycaemia.
R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760
Self-induced automatism, other than due to intoxication from alcohol or drugs, may provide a defence to crimes of basic intent. The question in each case will be whether the prosecution has proved the necessary element of recklessness. In cases of assault, if the defendant knows that his actions or in actions are likely to make him aggressive, unpredictable, or controlled with the result of that he may cause injury to others and he persists in that action or takes no remedial action, it will be open to the jury to find that he was reckless.
R v M’Naghten (1843)
(Insanity)
M’Naghten wanted to kill Robert Peel who established the police force. M though he killed him, but made a mistake and killed someone that looked like him instead. M had heard noises in his head.
The M’Naghten rules…a defect of reason, arising from a defect of mind, that he did not know the nature and quality of his act or if he did know this, that he did not know that it is wrong.
Insanity in our minds, we link to mental health conditions. If you think about the state of knowledge of mental health in 1843 it was very different to how we consider it today; things would be considered mental illnesses which we would not consider today.
It is an anomaly really that we are using a definition for insanity, which is not necessarily linked to mental illness, will still cover mental health conditions. So we use this old definition even though notions of mental health are so different now. This is a defence that is heavily criticized for its scope, operation, and its stigma (less than 20 pleas of insanity per year). We also have the condition of whether or not it is right..who if the defendant qualifies for this as a defence…who refuse to use it because of the stigma attached to it. We shouldn’t have a defence that isn’t really defending people.
R v Clarke
(M’Naghten Rule)
The defendant wandering around in a daze because of her depression. While she was in a bout of depression, she picked things up and wandered out without paying. She wasn’t focusing on the external world. She tried to rely on automatism. The judge said that if everything was caused by depression, then it was an internal cause and insanity. She plead guilty and then appealed. The court of appeal ruled that a defect of reason required an inability to reason not the failure to exercise reason. She failed on a defect of reason. Because she could reason…but she didn’t. She was still doing other things that required her mind to operate. This implied that reasoning was happening in her brain. The fact that she didn’t reason through fully and didn’t pay for her goods didn’t mean she had a lack of reason.
There are four elements to the M’Naghten Rule:
1) the defendant was suffering from a defective reason,
2) which was caused by a disease of the mind is so that he did not
3) know the nature and quality of his act, or
4) that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
R v Kemp
(Disease of the mind - insanity)
The defendant suffered from Arterisosleroisis. He had a bout of unconsciousness where he beat his wife with a hammer. It was accepted that there was no bad feeling between them that led him to do this. It was this medical problem. He sought to rely on automatism. The trial judge said, however, that this was a defence of insanity because that the reason his brain stopped controlling his body…was because it was the disease that caused this. The defence argued that it was wrong to say that a disease of the body has a mental ruling.
In R v Kemp it was said that a disease of the mind was something that affects ordinary powers of reason, memory and understanding. This is closer to the sort of mental condition that we would think of as failing under insanity. But the courts have been clear that the disease of the mind is not limited to mental health condition - it means anything that impairs the proper functioning of the mind. This has allowed it to embrace things we think of as physical conditions; this is because physical conditions can affect powers of reasoning, memory, and understanding.
Burgess
(Insanity - Sleep-walking)
the defendant attacked his girlfriend by smashing her over the head with a video recorder and tried to strange her while he was sleep walking. He sought to rely on automatism. The court of appeal ruled that sleep walking was a disease of the mind and fell within the defence of insanity.
Sleep walking is another thing that has troubled the court on whether it is an external or internal cause. In this case, the defendant didn’t always sleep walk, so it could have been something external that started it.
R v Codere
(Nature and quality of the act)
Cut his wife’s throat thinking he was cutting a loaf of bread.
The defendant must not be aware of what he is doing or think it is something entirely different from what he is actually doing.
Alternatively, if he does know the nature or quality of his act, he does not need to know that what he is doing is legally wrong.
R v Windle
(Nature and quality of the act)
Defendant was unhappy with a wife who was always threatening suicide. He himself was suffering from psychosis. His wife was threatening to take an overdose; so he gave her a big overdose. He said when he was arrested “I suspect they will hang me for this.” He was acknowledging that he knew what he was doing was wrong in the eyes of the Law. He was indeed hanged.
R v Johnson
(Nature and quality of the act)
One of the criticisms of insanity is that the test need to be formulated so it doesn’t capture people who are suffering from ordinary physical conditions. Johnson was a schizophrenic, who had a disease of the mind. He suffered such delusions which he acted toward. One delusion was that men were sexually abusing his young sister. He thought he had to kill those people and rid the world of pedophiles. On two separate occasions he went to the homes of men he thought were abusing his sister and stabbed them. He tried to rely on his insanity - he wanted to be treated rather than imprisoned. But his defence fell because he knew he was stabbing, and in terms of knowing what he was doing…he wanted to the defence to acknowledge there was a moral justification for what he did as part of his defence. The court eventually upheld the Windle definition - they wouldn’t accept moral wrongness. He knew what he was doing.
R v Allen
(Involuntary intoxication)
If you know you have an intoxicant…then that is all you need to know. Strength and effect doesn’t matter. This defence is only limited to those who don’t know they are taking an intoxicant at all.
R v Hardie
(Involuntary intoxication)
The defendant took valium. It makes you calm and reduces brain activity. The defendant and his girlfriend were going through some difficulties and he was very upset. His girlfriend gave him some valium…they both believed it would calm him down. He took a lot and then had a drink. This made him uneven in his reaction. He then went into a heavy sleep but would awake periodically and act unevenly. In one of his awakened state he set fire to part of the flat and he was charged with arson with the potential to endanger lives. He knew he was taking a drug of some sort.
He willingly took a drug…a prescription drug that wasn’t for him. he took too much and drank too much. This looks entirely like voluntary intoxication.
The Court of Appeal disagreed and thought it was involuntary intoxication because it was a prescription drug, even though it wasn’t for him, and he thought it would calm it down. Also, the effect of valium is so well known that it is universally accepted that it is a calming drug. Because of that they thought it was involuntarily intoxication.
The key thing for the court of appeal in this case is that valium is so well known to be a sedative that anyone taking it would be thought to become calm.
They didn’t want to make a cut and dry rule that anyone taking a prescription drug would become reckless. That is why they qualified it.
R v Kingston
(Involuntary intoxication)
The defendant had pedophilic tendencies. People tried to blackmail him by taking a boy and drugged him…and then drugged the defendant and put him in bed with the boy. He couldn’t resist this time. The court ruled he still had formed mens rea even though he wished he hadn’t. The limitations of involuntary intoxication is that that intoxication has to incapacitate you so you cannot form mens rea. Here he still committed a sexual act on a young boy, even though he only gave in to the temptation because of the involuntary intoxication.
