Mental Capacity Defences Flashcards
What is the definition of the defence of insanity
Defence raised when the uncontrollable actions of D have been caused by an internal and usually mental element. Available to any crime where mens rea is required.
What lays down the rules for insanity
The M’Naghten rules 1843 starting point is that everyone is presumed sane. Burden of proof is on the defendant who must prove their own insanity on balance of probabilities
What is the first rule of M’Naghten
D suffering from a defect of reasoning- must impair D’s power of reasoning R v Clarke- absentmindness and confusion not enough
What is the second rule of M’Naghten
Caused by a disease of mind- determined by judge but disease must cause a malfunctioning of the mind due to an internal factor
Epilepsy is disease of mind- R v Sullivan
Hardening of arteries is disease of mind R v Kemp
Sleep disorder is a disease of mind R v Burgess
What is the issue when scenario involves diabetes
Hyperglcaemic - lack of insulin R v Hennessy (internal)
Hypoglcaemic - too much insulin R v Quick (external)
What is the third rule of M’Naghten
Defendant does not know the nature and quality of their act or that it is legally wrong R v Windle
What happens if D has been found to have been insane
Special verdict- jury returns verdict of ‘not gulity by reason of insanity’
Can lead to committal to a mental hospital- Criminal Procedure 1991
Muder- Must be hospitalised indefinitely
What is the defintion of automatism and what is the case that establishes it
Performance of actions without concious thought or intention. It is a complete defence. Bratty v AG of NI
What must D show first for a defnce of automatism
Involuntary act in which the body had no control Hill v Baxter
Sneezing/swarm of bees
Second thing you must show for defence of automatism
Due to an external factor- often result of medication or violence R v Quick / Whooley
What is the third requirement for automatism
Act not self induced - if the D puts themselves in a position of automatism then the defence will fail R v Lipman
Adverse reaction to prescription drug- defence to both specifc and basic intent offneces
Improper action of D -automatism only defence to specifc intent offences
What is the definition of intoxication
Where D is unable to form mens rea of an offence due to being under the influence of an intoxicating substance such as alcohol or drugs
What is the law surrounding voluntary intoxication
Basic intent- no defence you were reckless in taking it R v Majewski
Specific intent- if voluntarily intoxicated it could mean they cannot form the mens rea of offence R v Sheehan and Moore
Basic intent alternative- where there is an alternative basic intent offence D may be charged with both a specific/basic intent offence and will be left to jury to decide if D has MR for specific intent crime R v Lipman
Dutch courage- if D had MR for specific intent offence before intoxication AG for NI v Gallagher
Except for theft at best only partial defence
What is definition of voluntary intoxication
D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance or knows that the effect of a prescribed drug will be to make them intoxicated R v Coley
What is the law surrounding involuntary intoxication
Covers situation where D did not know they were taking an intoxicating substance its a complete defence for both specific and basic intent offences
1. Can apply when prescribed medicine is taken as directed and has an unpredictable effect R v Hardie
2. Can apply where defendant does not know they are taking an intoxicating substance no defence if aware of intoxication R v Kingston
Intoxicated mistake- Defence to specific intent offence where mistake is about something which means D did not have necessary MR. Not defence for basic intent offences R v O’Grady
