Failure of proof Defences

Question 1

What do they Do?

Answer 1

Failure of Proof Defences Negate one of the elements of an offence

Question 2

Automatism Definition

Answer 2

An Involuntary Act; done without the control of the mind but simply a physical response of the body

If successful it results in an acquittal

Question 3

Automatism; Physical causes

Answer 3

Burns v Bidder: Car break failure

Question 4

Automatism; No Mental Cause

Answer 4

Automatism cannot have a mental cause that results int eh action; it must be the result of an external Factor
(if it is due to an internal factor then it is Insanity)

Hypoglycaemia R v Quick
R v T (PTSD)
Medically prescribed drugs ( r v King)

Question 5

Insanity; M’Naghten Rule

Answer 5

To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing

Question 6

Insanity defence results in:

Answer 6

• Hospital Order under sec 37 Mental Health Act 1983.
• Supervision Order.
• Absolute Discharge.

Question 7

Cause of Insanity

Answer 7

A defect of the Mind is the cause of Insanity; Internal Factors

Question 8

Insanity: The Bratty Test

Answer 8

any mental disorder, which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is insanity

Question 9

Automatism: The Quick Test

Answer 9

insanity defense not appropriate for those whose condition is temporary, easily controllable and caused by some external factor

Question 10

Insanity: The Kemp Test

Answer 10

if the lack of awareness is caused by an internal condition of the defendant it is insanity, however temporary or controllable it is.

• (A) diseases of the brain e.g. dementia, epilepsy
• (B) diseases of the body which have an effect upon the function of the mind
• (C) Functional psychoses e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar, clinical depression

Question 11

Sleepwalking

Answer 11

Sleepwalking in British Law is Insanity (Sleepwalking has been accepted as a defence in Canada)

R v Burgess

Question 12

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 12

• A. Intoxicant taken under medical supervision
• B. Intoxicant secretly administered to A without his knowledge e.g. Kingston
• C. Intoxicant NOT take under medical supervision but which is not known to provoke erratic or unpredictable behaviour

D is involuntarily intoxicated he is not guilty of any crime of Mens Rea
This means that involuntary intoxication is an irrelevance for crimes of negligence or strict liability

Question 13

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 13

If D is voluntarily intoxicated his lack of Mens Rea is only taken into account for crimes where the prosecution have to show D intended to do what he did and intended the consequences. These are known as crimes of specific intent.
Crimes of Specific Intent
• Murder
• Attempt
• Theft
• Causing grievous bodily harm with intent

Basic Intent Crimes cannot allow a defence of Intoxication:
Crimes that can be committed by recklessness or negligence

Question 14

Law Commission Reforms

Answer 14

• It recommends removal of the unsatisfactory distinction between basic intent and specific intent
• It provides a definitive list of states of mind to which self- induced intoxication is relevant.
• It identifies situations in which the offender’s intoxication would be regarded as involuntary rather than self- induced and establishes a rule setting out the relevance of the offender’s intoxicated state under these circumstances.