Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

LAW OCR > Mental Capacity Defences > Flashcards

Mental Capacity Defences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Who does the burden of proof lay on when proving insanity and what is it proved on?

A

Defendant
Balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is insanity sometimes known as?

A

Insane automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What does insanity negate?

A

Actus Reus, presumes act wasn’t voluntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the 4 factors to prove?

A

Defect of reason
Disease of the mind
Nature and quality of act
Knowledge that the act was wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Defect of reason case and description

A

R v Clarke (1972), deprived of power to reason
Short periods of absentmindedness fall short

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Disease of the mind cases and description

A

Legal not medical definition, malfunctioning of the mind.
- Arteriosclerosis: R v Kemp
- Epilepsy: R v Sullivan
- Diabetes: R v Hennessy
- Sleepwalking: R v Burgess

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does Devlin way about the disease of mind

A

The duration of temporary suspension of the “mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding is all that is required to satisfy the disease of mind requirement.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Nature and quality of act cases and description

A

Codere: physical not moral nature of act: R v Oye (2013)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Knowledge that the act was wrong cases and description

A

legal not morally wrong : R v Windle (1952), R v Johnson (2007)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Insanity and voluntary intoxication, what must cause insanity

A

Internal factor, intoxicating substances are external, defence can’t be used: R v Quick, R v Coley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The M’Naghten Rules (1843)

A

Defendant is suffering from defect of reason + defect is due to disease of the mind + defendant does not know nature of quality of their action, or if they do know it, do not know it is wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What does automatism seek to prove?

A

Involuntary act caused by an external factor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What defines automatism?

A

Bratty v A.G for NI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What does Bratty v A.G for NI state?

A

Defendants will have a complete defence if they can show at the time of the offence they were not in control of their bodily movements, rendering their conduct involuntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the 3 factors to prove automatism?

A

Involuntary act
External cause
Self induced automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Involuntary act cases and description

A

Total loss of voluntary control: Brooke v Perkins
Can include conditions like PTSD: R v T

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

External cause cases and description

A

Inability to control ones acts must be caused by an external factor
Not available via internal cause: R v Quick, R v Hennessy

18
Q

Self induced automatism facts and cases

A

If automatism results from an appropriate action with unforeseen consequences, defence can be used regardless of the crime.
Defence may not be available is automatised caused by the defendants own fault: R v Bailey
There and specific rules for specific and basic intent

19
Q

What is specific intent in automatism?

A

Crimes that only have intention as a level of mens rea (s.18 GBH)

20
Q

What is basic intent in automatism?

A

Crimes where the defendant has been reckless or negligent (s.20 GBH)

21
Q

Was are the specific intent facts?

A

Might still have a defence is automatism was self-induced as there was a lack of mens rea

22
Q

First rule of basic intent?

A

Defendant cannot use the defence if being reckless as it is a basic intent

23
Q

Second rule and case of basic intent?

A

Drinking, illegal drugs etc are reckless courses of action, therefore cannot use the defence: R v Coley, R v Majewski

24
Q

Third rule and case of basic intent?

A

If the defendant doesn’t know their actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state they haven’t been reckless and can use the defence: R v Hardie

25
Q

What does intoxication include?

A

Full defence to any crimes, caused by alcohol and/or drugs. Only allowed then the defendant lacked the mens rea of the offence. Specific and basic intent applies

26
Q

What do you have to prove in intoxication?

A

If the defendant had the mens rea of the crime: R v Kingston
If the person intoxication are capable of forming the mens rea: Sheehan & Moore
If the defendant was intoxicated voluntary or not

27
Q

What does voluntary intoxication say?

A

Only ever a partial defence and it depends on the mens rea of the crime charged

28
Q

What if the voluntary intoxication was a specific intent and case?

A

Defendant can use defence if it can be proved they were so drunk they couldn’t form the mens rea: DPP v Beard

29
Q

What is the voluntary intoxication was a basic intent?

A

Cannot use the defence: DDP v Majewski

30
Q

What are the 3 points in involuntary intoxication?

A

Prescribed drugs
Soporific drugs
Laced drugs

31
Q

What is the defence of prescribed drugs?

A

Full defence, courts don’t regard taking prescribed drugs reckless

32
Q

What is the defence of soporific drugs?

A

In some circumstances they have a defence

33
Q

What is the case of soporific drugs?

A

R v Hardie

34
Q

What is the defence of laced drugs?

A

Full defence, not voluntary, applies to if you were a unaware of a drink having a high alcohol content

35
Q

Case of laced drugs?

A

Allen

36
Q

What does intoxicated mistake say?

A

They can have a defence depending on what they are mistaken about?

37
Q

What are the cases of intoxicated mistake?

A

R v Lipman
R v O’Grady
R v Hatton

38
Q

What does the CJ&I Act (2008) (s.76(5)) say

A

Reasonable force may be used for self defence/ prevention of crime

39
Q

What does s.76(5) state?

A

“Does not enable a defendant to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced”

40
Q

What have the words attributable to intoxication mentioned? + case

A

A mistaken state of mind comes about as a result of:
- Being drunk or intoxicated at the time
- Short term effects of the intoxication triggering subsequent episodes(E.G paranoia) case of Taj

LAW OCR (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions