PAPER 1: Section B - Mental Capacity Defences [COMPLETE]

Question 1

1) What is insanity and give some facts about it.

Answer 1

A defence relevant at the time an offence is committed.
Used when there’s a missing mens rea.
Verdict will be ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’
Prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt they’re insane in trial. It’s rarely used now.

Question 2

2) Explain R v M’Naughten.

Answer 2

D suffered from paranoia and was convinced he was being targeted by the government. He attempted to kill the prime minister but missed and accidentally killed his secretary. Medical opinion said he was mentally ill and the House of Lords for future cases.

Question 3

3) What are the M’Naughten rules?

Answer 3

Usually, the accused are conscious that they weren’t supposed to the act they did was wrong, and the jury assumed that every man is presumed to be sane and responsible for their crime.

However, to use the Insanity defence, it must be clearly proved that the defendant:

i) had a disease of the mind
ii) defect of reason
iii) did not know the nature and quality of his act or knew it was wrong.

Question 4

4) Explain ‘disease of the mind’ and its relevant CASES. (hint: brain blood supply, epilepsy)

Answer 4

This must be a mental or physical disease which IS NOT caused by external facts like drugs. It can be a permanent or temporary state.

R v Kemp - Condition which caused a problem with brain blood supply. He had temporary unconsciousness and during a black out committed GBH.However, the temporary unconsiousness counted as a ‘disease of the mind’.

R v Sullivan - Kicked a neighbour during an an epliptic fit. Courts held that this counted as eplipsy fits have an effect on the mind and fits are classed as insanity. It’s not automatism as there’s no external factor.

Question 5

5) Explain ‘defect of reason’ and its relevant CASES. (hint, absentmindness, internal factor/sleepwalking)

Answer 5

The defendant’s powers of reasoning must be impaired.

R v Clarke - CoA held ‘defect of reason’ is valid alongside the M’Naughten rules. Their mind must be discussed in order to equate more than absent-mindness or confusion.

R v Burgess - D hit friend with blunt objects during sleep. Medical abuse stated that there was no external causes and the sleep walking as triggered by an internal sleeping disorder. Court held internal factors = insanity.

Question 6

6) Explain ‘not knowing the nature & quality of the act’ -‘ and it’s relevant CASE.
(hint: ‘Suppose they’ll hang me for this?’)

Answer 6

The defendant has to show at least one of hese conditions at the time of the act, they can satisfy this M’Naugten rule.

• doesn’t know what they’re doing or understand what they’re doing due to their mental conditions.
• doesn’t apperciate the conswuences of theit act.
• doesn’t apperciate the circumstances they’re acting in.

R v Windle - Killed suicidal wife and gave himself up. He said ‘I’ll suppose they’ll hang me for this?” - indicating he knew it was legally wrong so he COULDN’T use the insanity plea.

Question 7

7) What is intoxciation?

Answer 7

Intoxication covers a missing mens rea when the defendant was intoxicated with alcohol, drugs and solvents. If a defedant is intoxicated, they may not have the necessary mens rea. It’s used in limited circumstances.

Question 8

8) What factors are cinsdered in intoxication?

Answer 8

• Whether the defendant was volunatary or involunatary.

- Whether the offence is specfic intent or basic intent.

Question 9

9) What are examples of specific intent crimes?

Answer 9

• Murder
• s.18 gbh
• Theft
• Robbery
• Burglary

Question 10

10) What are examples of basic intent crimes?

Answer 10

• Manslaughter
• s.20 gbh
• s.45 abh
• assault
• battery

Question 11

11) What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 11

Where the defendant chose to take an intoxciting substance. This includes: alcohol, drugs and other intoxicating drugs (ie sniffing glue).

Question 12

12) Voluntary manslaughter can negate the mens rea for a SPECIFIC INTENT OFFENCE ONLY? What is an example of these and what is the relevant CASE?
(hint: zerkaa)

Answer 12

Specific intent offences are murder, gbh s.18 etc.

DPP v Beard - D claimed he was too intoxciated to fulfil the mens rea for murder. Court held that if someone is so intoxicated that they were incapable of forming the intent required, then they have to be acquitted.

Question 13

13) What case shows that intoxciation CANNOT be used for BASIC INTENT crimes? What’s the relevant CASE?(hint: jewish skiing)

Answer 13

R v Majewski - D attacked his landlord and police officers arresting him. He was charged with ABH and court held being intoxicated makes you reckless, which is enough mens rea for ABH and specific intent cases in general.

Question 14

14) What happens in murder cases when intoxication is used? Relevant CASE?
(hint: LIP MAN EMOJIS HERE)

Answer 14

Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to murder as it’s specific intent but then it’s usually reduced down to manslaughter, which is basic intent and cannot be a defence to manslaughter.

R v Lipman - Whilst on LSD, believed his girlfriend was snakes attacking him, so defended himself by shoving cloth down her throat. Convicted of manslaughter because of reasons above, so still guilty.

Question 15

15) What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 15

Where a person doesn’t know they’re taking alcohol or drugs. This includes being laced via soft drinks. If the defendant can still form mens rea when intoxicated, then they’re still liable.

Question 16

16) What case shows that involuntary intoxication is a weak defence? (hint: capatial of Jamaica)

Answer 16

R v Kingston - D was drugged by someone who wanted to blackmail him. He was then lured to a minor and sexually abused him whilst being photographed. He was convicted because it’s not clear if the drugs were a factor in him performing this rape.

Question 17

17) What is automatism?

Answer 17

A complete defence where the defendant proves the body acted without any control by the mind. This is due to an external factor.

Question 18

18) What does Bratty say about automatism?

Answer 18

D was convicted because Lord Denning stated that ‘automatism is an act done by the muscle without any control by the mind. An example would be a spasm, reflex action, an person who’s done an act after being concussed or suffering from sleep walking. Therefore, D taking off the tights was none of these, but the strangulation probably was.

Question 19

19) What CASE talks about partial or reduced control of one’s actions being sufficient to constitute automatism?

Answer 19

Attorney-General’s Reference - Automatism occurs when there’s a total loss of control. Therefore impaired or reduced control IS NOT sufficient . D had some control of the lorry as he was able to steer, so was partially aware of his surroundings and therefore COULD NOT claim automatism - he was convicted for murder.

Question 20

20) What is self-induced automatism? State the relevant CASE (hint: black guy from The Dumping Ground)

Answer 20

This is where the defendant knows that their conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state. Examples include people drinking alcohol when they’re on a medication that doesn’t allow alcohol consumption.

R v Bailey - D was a diabetic who faile who to eat enough after taking his insulin to control his diabetes. He became agressive and hit someone over the head with an iron bar. Automatism wasn’t avaliable even after appeal.