Denials of Offending

Question 1

What are the two main types of defences in criminal law?

Answer 1

Partial defences (e.g., diminished responsibility, loss of self-control) and specific defences (e.g., consent in OAPA offences

Question 2

What is meant by “denials of offending” in criminal law?

Answer 2

These occur when a defendant denies the essential elements of a crime, such as the actus reus (AR) or mens rea (MR), preventing liability

Question 3

What are the three specific denials of offending recognised in law?

Answer 3

Intoxication, sane automatism, and insanity

Question 4

Who bears the legal burden of proof in cases of intoxication and sane automatism?

Answer 4

The prosecutor must prove the defendant’s liability beyond reasonable doubt

Question 5

Who bears the legal burden of proof in cases of insanity?

Answer 5

The defendant bears both the evidential and legal burden, and must prove insanity on the balance of probabilities

Question 6

What was the legal principle established in Kingston [1994] regarding intoxication?

Answer 6

Even involuntary intoxication does not remove liability if the defendant still forms the necessary intent—drunken intent is still intent

Question 7

How did the court rule in AG for NI v Gallagher [1963] regarding “Dutch courage”?

Answer 7

Voluntary intoxication to gain courage does not negate mens rea; the defendant was still liable for murder

Question 8

What are the five conditions required for prior fault to apply in intoxication cases?

Answer 8

1. D was intoxicated
2. The intoxication was voluntary
3. The offence is one of basic intent
4. The intoxicant was dangerous
5. The intoxication caused the lack of MR

Question 9

In Hardie [1985], why was the defendant’s conviction overturned?

Answer 9

The sedative taken was not a dangerous substance, so prior fault did not apply

Question 10

What does sane automatism require, according to Broome v Perkins [1987]?

Answer 10

Total loss of voluntary control; partial control (even if impaired) is insufficient

Question 11

How did Bailey [1983] define prior fault in automatism cases?

Answer 11

Prior fault exists where the defendant foresaw the risk of losing control due to their actions (e.g., not eating after insulin)

Question 12

What are the two key elements of the M’Naghten Rules for the insanity defence?

Answer 12

1. Defendant has a disease of the mind
2. The defendant either did not know the nature/quality of the act or did not know it was wrong

Question 13

What is the legal consequence of a successful insanity plea?

Answer 13

A verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity,” usually followed by a hospital order rather than punishment