#Exam1(2)- Defences mental capacity Flashcards
what are the mental capacity defences
insanity, automatism and intoxication
what crime can’t insanity be used for
drunk driving it is strict liability
what is case is insanity based on
M’Naghten
what are the three rules M’naghten provided
defect of reason
result of disease of mind
caused D not to know nature of offence and not to realise it was wrong
who must prove insanity
the defence
what does defect of reason mean
their reasoning must have become impaired
what happened in R v Clarke
quashed conviction because had absentmindedness- defect of reason
Disease of mind is
a legal definition, which can be either a physical or mental
R v Kemp
hardening arteries causes him to attack wife COA found that this come under disease of mind
R v Sullivan
mans epilepsy was long term. he ended up attacking 80 year old man. upheld conviction because it didn’t exist at time of attack
R v Hennessy
shows that diabetes can fall under insanity if it effects the mind
what did R v Burgess find
D attacking his girlfriend in his sleep due to sleep walking was insanity
external causes= automatism
what did R v Quick show
diabetics can’t use insanity as an excuse if they haven’t taken insulin- this is an external cause
can a defendant use the defence of insanity if they have voluntarily taken a intoxicating substance and they have a psychotic episode
no
what does R v Coley show
couldn’t use insanity for almost killing neighbors as it was self induced psychosis, he couldn’t use automatism for same reason.
what does not knowing nature of the act mean
they have impaired consciousness
they do not understand what they are doing
what does R v Oye show
he could use NGBRI because he thought police officers were demons and this shows he didn’t understand quality of the act
what does R v Windle show
for all someone may commit a crime and have a disease of mind. they still can’t use defence if they know they are legally wrong
how is R V Johnson similar to windle
the psychiatrists pointed out that like Windle, Johnson realized what he done was legally wrong
what did the Criminal procedure act 1991 do
gave the following options to judges for sentencing
hospital order, supervision order, absolute discharge
evaluate insanity
M’Naghten rules- out of date low knowledge on medical issues
Legal definition- groups like psychopaths not covered
overlap with automatism- confusing to see whether due to external causes or mental illness
social stigma- insanity carries this
Windle- prevents those who may need mental help getting it
EU CHR- d has to proves insanity- goes against article 6 of HRA.
juries- have to decide whether someone is insane or not.
what are proposals for reforming insanity
RC- suggest including those with irresistible urges
1975- Butler committee and in 1789 LC suggest rename to ‘mental disorder’
none of these have been done , however giving judges more options gave them more suitable sentences
what are the two types of automatism
insane and non insane automatism
what is covered by non insane automatism
blow to head, swarm of bees, sneezing, hypnosis, drugs
Hill v Baxter
couldn’t use defence as it was up to him to exit the ‘ automatic state’
R V T
D was raped and claimed PTSD was excuse for bank robbery. judge allowed jury to decide to which they convicted her.
Attorney generals reference 1993
his trance entered while driving on motorway COA held only partial loss of control and not automatism
what does R V Bailey raise the issue of
self induced automatism, failed to eat enough after taking insulin, can’t use defence
what must be proven for automatism
external cause- non insane automatism total destruction of voluntary control was the automatism self induced ? was D reckless getting into automatic state- no all offences yes- specifc intenet
what does R v Hardie show
he could use automatism as the valium wasn’t expcted to make him angry
evaluate automatism
unclear whether defence for AR or MR. If AR it could be argued to be a defence for strict liability crimes
complete defence- may need help
hard to distinguish between insane and non insane
sleepwalking is sometimes considered as insane and non insane.
what are the rules on voluntary intoxication
SI- if d has intent they are guilty - Gallagher
if no Mr then they are not guilty
BI-Becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct - Majewski- D is guilty
what are the rules of involuntary intoxication
SI- if d has MR they are guilty- Kingston
no mr not guilty- hardie
BI- if D not reckless to getting intoxicated so not guilty
what are the specific intent rules regarding drunken mistake
if mistake negates mr then not guilty
if mistake is about need to defend oneself then guilty still both s and b offences (O’grady /Hatton)
cant rely on mistaken belief for self defence
what is the basic intent rule for drunken mistakes
this is a reckless course of conduct so the defendant is guilty.
R v sheehan and moore
two drunk men set fire to a tramp- given conviction of mansluaghter and not murder
A- g for NI v Gallagher
man drinks whiskey for dutch courage- still murder
Harris
man suffered hallucinations after he stops drinking he then hears voices telling him to committ arson- allowed defence
r v kingston
man is spiked and blackmailed and he molests a boy- still couldn’t use defence as he had MR.
R v Lipman
LSD trip causes man to think he is being attacked by snakes. convicted of manslaughter as he was reckless to taking LSD.
