Mental Capacity Defences cases Flashcards
insanity, automatism and intoxication
M’Naghten Rules
insanity
1843
3 elements: defect of reason, disease of the mind and nature/quality of the act
Clarke
insanity 1) DoR, meaning deprived of the powers of reasoning, and is < absent mindedness/ confusion
Sullivan
insanity 1) DoR, can be permanent or temporary (epilepsy)
M’Naghten
insanity 2) DoM example- delusional/paranoid
Kemp
insanity 2) DoM example- hardening of the arteries
Sullivan (2)
insanity 2) DoM example- epilepsy
Hennessy
insanity 2) DoM example- diabetes
Burgess
insanity 2) DoM example- sleepwalking (sleep disorder)
Quick
insanity 2) DoM, being diabetic but not eating properly is an external cause and is therefore automatism
Oye, Windle
insanity 3) N/Q, must not know the nature and quality of their act (not understand/know what he is doing OR not know wrong in law)
Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland
automatism def, “an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind e.g spasm, reflex action, convulsion, not conscious of action, suffering from concussion”
Hill v Baxter
automatism examples, external cause- sneezing, hypnotism, blow to the head, attack by bees, ptsd”
Bailey
self-induced automatism: where d’s conduct bring on automatic state and applies differently to basic/specific
Hardie (A)
self-induced automatism could be basic def if D did not know the risk (sub reck)
Lipman
if D is so intoxicated that x formed the mr for spec, they will be found guilty for a lesser ‘fallback’ crime. must be extreme
x mr due to intox mistake abt key fact, x basic = sufficient sr. may be -> spec
DPP v Majewski
voluntary intoxication x defence to basic int crimes
A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
voluntary intoxication x defence where d has the necessary mr e.g ‘dutch courage’ initial mr