Mental Condition Defences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

o A-G Ref (No.2 of 1992)

A

the defence of automatism requires “a total destruction of voluntary control on D’s part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough.”

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

o Broome v Perkins

A

hypoglycaemia was not sufficient since he was capable of reacting to stimuli

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

o Quick

A

Advanced hypoglycaemia apparently suffices to canvass the automatism defence outside of driving offences.

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

o Bratty

A

Lord Denning spoke of “an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind” which would be meaningless if he was speaking of unconsciousness; instead this should be read as referring to complete loss of deliberative control, the ability to reason about and choose one’s actions

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

What is an abnormality of mental functioning?

A

According to the act an abnormality of mental functioning refers to a substantial impairment of the defendant’s ability to understand the nature of his conduct, form a rational judgment or exercise self control.

If D seeks to show the latter, it appears jury perception is a significant factor, especially where D is merely suffering from psychopathy or personality disorder - see Byrne vs Sutcliffe.

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

What constitutes a recognised medical condition?

A

Dowds - ICD 10 and DSM are merely indicative of what constitutes a recognised medical condition. Voluntary intoxication has only ever been relevant to proof of mens rea, and the court did not depart from this principle here (although acute intoxication is reflected in both lists).

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

What constitutes a “substantial” impairment?

A

R - conditions that are “trivial and insignificant” may be set aside, but D is NOT required to show that his mental responsibility for his actions was so grossly impaired as to be extinguished.

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

What does it mean for the recognised mental condition to “provide an explanation” for D’s conduct?

A

Contrary to Ormerod’s suggestion that S.2(1B) is not an exhaustive list of what constitutes an explanation, the fact that non-causal explanations were omitted suggests a causal linkage is needed. Thus an account will have to be given of HOW the disease caused the murder.

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