Denials of an offence Flashcards
what is the concept of doli incapax?
incapable of committing a criminal offence- applies to children under the age of 10
What would happen if an adult persuades a child aged 9 to steal from a shop?
the child cannot be convicted under doli incapax principle, but the adult may through an innocent agent
where is the ‘fitness to plead’ procedure located?
ss.4,4a and 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964
fitness to plead factors- case law
Pritchard [1836]; John M [2003]
insanity is a general defence and can be pleaded to any offence
Loake v CPS [2017]
Governs the defence of insanity- case of murder of Sir Robert Peel’s secretary
M’Naghen Rules [1843]
a mere absentmindedness is not a ‘defect of reason’
Clarke [1972]- stole goods from a supermarket
cerebral tumour is a disease of the mind
Bratty [1963]
arteriosclerosis- congestion of blood in the brain leading to unconsciousness is also a disease of the mind-
Kemp [1957]- D wanted to plead automatism, judge left insanity to the jury
epilepsy amounts to insanity
Sullivan [1984]
sleepwalking is also classified as insanty
Burgess [1991]
reasoning behind the defence of insanity
protect society from dangerous conduct, which is prone to reoccur
hyperglycemia- high blood sugar-internal
only insanity is available- Hennessy [1989]
hypoglycaemia- low blood sugar- external
automatism- injection caused excess insulin-
for the defence of insanity, when asking whether D knew that the act was wrong- a legal standard applies; not moral
Windle [1952]; Johnson [2007]
no defence for ‘irresistible impulse’
Kopsch [1927]; Sodeman [1936]
an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind
Lord Denning in Bratty [1963]- automatism
there must be a total loss of voluntary control
Broome v Pekins [1987]
a swarm of bees example; external factor
Hill v Baxter [1958]
what if D places his foot on the accelerator rather than the brake pedal of his car? Can that constitute a muscle spasm, hence allow for the defence of automatism?
AG’s Ref. [2001]-not available when D’s action was a voluntary physical movement
hypoglycaemia- low blood sugar-case law
Quick and Paddison [1973]; Bingham [1991]
PTSD causing a dissociative state will allow for the defence of automatism
T [1990]- D had been raped 3 days prior to the offence, court allowed her to plead automatism as there was a total loss of control
what is a crime of basic intent?
a crime which can be committed with a lesser mens rea- i.e recklessnesss
what is a specific intent crime?
a crime which requires intention as the mens rea
voluntary intoxication cannot be a defence to a crime of basic intent
Lipman [1970]- killed gf, whilst on LCD; rules in DPP v Majewski [1977]
Voluntary intoxication- a difference is drawn between ‘dangerous’ and ‘non-dangerous drugs’- give contrasting case law
contrast LCD- Lipman vs. Bailey [1983] insulin
drugged intent is still intent; drunken intent is still intent
even when involuntarily intoxicated, a defendant must lack the mens rea in order to rely on this as a defence. If MR is established is not negated by D’s intoxicated state
drugs- Kingston [1995]; Sheehan and Moore[1975]- alcohol
uncertainty for trial judges is present on when to give the Sheehan Direction- inv. intoxication and MR
Aidid v R [2021]
involuntary intoxication- valium tablets- acquitted
Hardie [1985]- set fire to a wardrobe
D’s conduct in becoming drunk is reckless
satisfies the MR for basic intent crimes- DPP v Majewki [1977]
Why is a defendant ill advise to plead voluntary intoxication even to specific intent crimes?
D would often be charged with the lesser, baSic intent offence
for example- s.18 OAPA to s.20 OAPA
rape is a crime of basic intent
Heard [2007]`
why is the case of Majewski so widely crtisised?
Violation of the actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea- no man is guilty of a crime unless he has a guilty mind
contravention of s.8 of the Criminal Justice ct 1967- requires a jury to take into account all of the evidence when concluding whether D foresaw the consequences
no coincidence of AR and MR- recklessness is in existence before committing the AR in voluntary intoxication
too much reliance on policy- protecting the public
What is Dutch courage? Can intoxication be a defence?
deliberate consumption of alcohol in order to gin confidence to commit a criminal offence
intoxication is no defence- Gallagher [1963]`
when intoxicated self-defence is no defence?
O’Grady [1987]
how does intoxication interact with automatism and insanity defences?
automatism is not available- Lipman [1970]
insanity is subject to M’Naghten Rules
sorry dad it’s not me I am sorry; they hang me for this- both showed that insanity will not be available, why? and which cases is this from?
R v Keal [2022]; White [1952]- Ds knew their act is either morally or legally wrong, so requirements for insanity not fullfilled
recent unfitness to plead, unsuccessful case
Ihenacho [2021]
