Defences Flashcards
Intro to insanity
The defence is only relevant to the time the offence is committed.
The D must prove it on the balance of probabilities.
If the crown raises an issue, it is for the D to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
If the defence is successful then theD will be found not guilty for reasons of insanity
Special verdict under the Criminal Procedure Act 1964
The elements to insanity
Comes from the case of M’Naughton. The M’Naughton rules: -Defect of reasoning -Caused by a disease of the mind -which causes the D to not know the nature of his conduct or the quality of his act or what he is doing is wrong
Defect of reasoning
D’s powers of reasoning is impaired which means they do not have the ability to reason. If the D simply failed to use his powers of reasoning through simple confusion or absent mindedness, then the defence will fail - from the case of Clarke
Disease of the mind
This is a legal definition not a medical one.
Disease can be a mental or physical condition which affects the mind.
Must be an internal factor
It covers situations that doctors would not term as disease of the mind:
-Arteriosclerosis - Kemp
-Epilepsy - Sullivan
-Diabetes (hyper) - Henessy
-Sleepwalking - Burgess
Can be permanent or temporary
D did not know the nature or quality of his act, or what he was doing was wrong.
Refers to the physical matter rather than the moral nature of the conduct:
D must prove any of the following:
-He did not know what he was doing
-He did not appreciate the consequences
-He did not appreciate the circumstances he was acting in
-Knowing that the act itself was wrong, which means legally wrong rather than morally - Windle
Intro to automatism
Automatism is a defence because the D has not committed the act voluntarily.
Also the D does not have the MR for the offence
An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind
Rules for automatism
-D has done the AR but nit voluntarily
-D does not have required MR
-The cause of the automatism must be external
-Successful defence will lead to acquittal
Comes from the case of Brattey v Attorney General for Northern Ireland
Must be an external cause
Examples: -Hypnosis -Sneezing -Being attacked by bees -being hit on the head -PTSD - R v T -Muscle spasms Partial or reduced control of ones actions will not suffice AG’s Ref (No 2 of 1992)
Self induced automatism
Where the D knows that his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state.
The case of Bailie gives us the rules.
SIA when it is a specific intent offence
Can be a defence because the D lacks the MR
SIA when it is a basic intent offence
1st: the Prosecution has to prove the necessary element of recklessness for the particular offence D is charged with
2nd: Where the self induced automatic state is caused through drink or drugs or any other intoxicating substances the defence will fail - DPP v Majewski
3rd: Where the D does not know that his actions are likely to lead to a self induced automatic state in which he may commit an offence, he has not been reckless and therefore can use the defence if automatism - Hardie
Intro to intoxication
Covers situations where:
- The D is intoxicated through alcohol or drugs or any noxious substances
- The D has taken the substance voluntarily, also taking prescription dugs voluntarily and D knows they will make him intoxicated
- The D has taken them involuntarily
Voluntary intoxication - basic intent offences
It is not a defence for basic intent offences.
Recklessness is not enough to constitute to the MR - DPP v Majewski
Courts have adopted the idea that the jury should consider whether the D would have realised the risk had he not been intoxicated - Richardson & Irwin
So if the jury feel this way then he is not guilty
Voluntary intoxication - Specific intent offences
VI can negate the MR for a SIO.
If the D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the MR he is not guilty
However D may be convicted of the corresponding BI offence.
Drunken intent is still intent - AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Situations for Involuntary intoxication
- D’s drink has been spiked
- D takes drugs prescribed by doctors in accordance with the instructions
- D takes a non dangerous drug which is not prescribed but takes it in a non reckless way