Mental Capacity Defences

Question 1

Intoxication: Introduction

Answer 1

D was so intoxicated they could not form the mens rea of the offence (DPP v Beard).

Question 2

Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 2

• D has chosen to take an intoxication substance.
• Specific intent = defence
• basic intent = no defence

Question 3

Voluntary intoxication: cases

Answer 3

• R v Sheehan and Moore
• R v Lipman
• DPP v Majewski

Question 4

Involuntary Intoxication

Answer 4

• D did not know they were taking an intoxicating substance.
• Provides a defence for both specific and basic intent
• If the defendant has the mens rea before being intoxicated, there is no defence: R v Kingston.

Question 5

Insanity: Introduction

Answer 5

• Defendant is suffering from a defect of reason
• Defect is due to a disease of the mind
• D doesn’t not know nature and quality of action.

Question 6

Insanity: defect of reason

Answer 6

More than absent mindedness or confusion: R v Clarke.

Question 7

Insanity: Disease of the mind

Answer 7

Mental: R v Kemp
Physical: R v Sullivan
Diabetes: R v Hennessy
Sleep-walking: Burgess

Question 8

Insanity: not knowing nature of quality

Answer 8

D must know the nature of their action:
* Unconscious or impaired consciousness
* Conscious but due to mental condition they don’t understand what they’re doing

Question 9

Insanity: Social verdict

Answer 9

D’s successful plead will impose:
* Hospital order
* Supervision order
* Absolute discharge

Question 10

Automatism: Introduction

Answer 10

Link to insanity:
Automatism covers external factors.
* Actus reus is involuntary
* external cause
* defendant does not have mens rea due to automatism.

Question 11

Automatism: Involuntary act

Answer 11

Total loss of voluntary control: AG Ref (No.2 of 1992).

Question 12

Automatism: External

Answer 12

• blow to the head
• PTSD effects
• Drugs effect

Question 13

Automatism: self-induced

Answer 13

D can only rely on defence of self induced automatism for specific intent offences.