Mental Capacity Defences (Insanity, Automatism, Intoxication)

Question 1

What is meant by intoxication?

Answer 1

Where the D has consumed alcohol, drugs or other substances they may be able to raise this defence

Question 2

What does it mean when we ask if mens rea was negated?

Answer 2

Was the D capable of forming the mens rea for the crime they committed even with the intoxication

Question 3

What case showed the D had still formed the mens rea?

Answer 3

R v Kingston

Question 4

What is meant by voluntary intoxication and what type of crimes can this be a defence to?

Answer 4

D drinks or takes a substance by their own accord, only a defence to specific intent crimes (e.g. murder, s18)

Question 5

What is meant by involuntary intoxication and what does this apply to?

Answer 5

Includes taking a prescription, sedative drugs or not knowing you’re intoxicated (i.e. spiked), defence to both specific and basic intent crimes

Question 6

True or false, if you are voluntarily intoxicated and commit a basic intent offence you will be acquitted

Answer 6

False, DPP v Majewski, not a defence as taking alcohol is seen as a reckless course of conduct

Question 7

What is the fall back rule?

Answer 7

If intoxication succeeds for a specific intent crime, D not acquitted but found guilty of next most serious basic intent offence (e.g. s18 becomes s20)

Question 8

What case shows the fall back rule in action?

Answer 8

R v Lipman

Question 9

What is meant by Dutch courage?

Answer 9

Getting drunk to carry out a crime isn’t a defence, even if MR is eventually negated

Question 10

What case showed Dutch courage made the defence fail?

Answer 10

AG for N.I. v Gallagher

Question 11

What case said that drunken intent is still intent?

Answer 11

R v Sheenan

Question 12

What is automatism?

Answer 12

A defence where the D must show their act was an involuntary one caused by an external factor

Question 13

What case defined automatism?

Answer 13

Bratty v AG of Northern Ireland, an act which was done by the defendants muscles without any control by his mind

Question 14

What case shows the D did not have a complete loss of control?

Answer 14

AG reference (No2 of 1992)

Question 15

What is meant by an external factor? Give a case as an example

Answer 15

Something from outside the body, e.g. Hill v Baxter, swarm of bees

Question 16

What is meant by self-induced automatism and what examples can be given?

Answer 16

Where D knows his conduct is likely to bring an automatic state, defence will fail, drink/drugs (Lipman) taking sedatives, unless effect is unexpected (Hardie)

Question 17

What did the case of Bailey confirm?

Answer 17

Self-induced automatism can be a defence to specific intent crimes, however this can be classed as reckless with a basic intent offence

Question 18

Where does insanity come from?

Answer 18

• M’Naughten, legal definition not medical, every man is presumed sane until the contrary
• Defect of reason from a disease of the mind causing the D to not know the nature and quality of his act, or to know it but not that it was wrong
• Burden on D, on balance of probabilities

Question 19

What is a disease of the mind?

Answer 19

• Cause must be internal (Quick)
• Can be functional or organic
• Can include blood supply to the brain (Kemp), epilepsy (Sullivan) and diabetes (Hennessey)

Question 20

What is meant by defect of reason?

Answer 20

• Powers of reasoning are impaired
• Absent mindedness or confusion is not enough (Clarke)
• If caused by intoxication the defence will fail

Question 21

How can we prove the D did not know the nature and quality of their act?

Answer 21

• If D is in a state of consciousness or unconsciousness but not understanding the act, or does not know that it is legally wrong (Burgess)
• If they know the act is legally wrong despite having an illness the defence will fail (Windle)