Webcast

Question 0

How can automatism be a defence?

Answer 0

If a persons conduct is involuntary in the sense that his mind is unable to control his bodily actions. Example, a man driving along and has a stroke crashing into someone and killing them. He is not liable as his conduct was not voluntary.

Question 1

What are the types of automatism?

Answer 1

Sane and insane automatism.

Question 2

What is automatism?

Answer 2

It is a denial of the AR and MR meaning it can be a defence to any crime. It is an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind (Bratty v AG).

Question 3

What are the elements to the defence of automatism?

Answer 3

There must be a total loss of voluntary control by the D and that loss of control must be caused by an external factor.

Question 4

As a defence, what is insanity available to?

Answer 4

As a defence to all crimes. A person wishing to rely on it bears the burden of proving it on the balance of probabilities.

Question 5

What does a successful plea of insanity result in?

Answer 5

Verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity leaving the court with the options of imposing a hospital order, a supervision order or an absolute discharge.

Question 6

Why is insanity an underused defence?

Answer 6

Prior to 1991 the special verdict results in indefinite hospital detention, also the stigma that is attached to insane.

Question 7

What are the elements of the defence according to the M’Naghten rules?

Answer 7

A defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, that causes the D not to know the nature and quality of the act or not to know that his conduct was wrong.

Question 8

How can you establish a defect of reason?

Answer 8

D must prove he was prevented from exercising his powers of reason. In Clarke she retained the power of reasoning. She went out shoplifting and claimed her depression made her absent minded.

Question 9

What is a disease of the mind?

Answer 9

Kemp said that it is concerned with the mind, not the brain. Epilepsy (Sullivan), Diabetes (Hennessy), Sleepwalking (Burgess).

Question 10

Which case said that a drunken intent is still intent?

Answer 10

R v Sheeahan and Moore.

Question 11

Why can intoxication never be relevant to crimes of strict or absolute liability?

Answer 11

Such crimes do not require MR.

Question 12

In relation to all other crimes excluding strict and absolute liability, when will intoxication always be a defence?

Answer 12

Involuntary intoxication.

Question 13

In relation to other crimes that are not strict or absolute liability, if you were voluntary intoxicated what would happen?

Answer 13

He will not be guilty of a crime of specific intent, it will be a crime of basic intent.

Question 14

For a crime of basic intent, can you rely on intoxication as a defence?

Answer 14

No (Majewski).

Question 15

What is involuntary intoxication?

Answer 15

Spiked or laced drinks meaning that someone does not know they are consuming alcohol or drugs.

Question 16

What happens if a crime that requires MR is committed by someone who has been involuntary intoxicated?

Answer 16

They are entitled to be acquitted as long as it not an offence of strict or absolute liability as they require no MR. However, if they formed the MR he will be liable even if the only reason he formed it was due to his state (Kingston).

Question 17

What is voluntary intoxication?

Answer 17

Those who choose to take drugs or drink alcohol.

Question 18

What is voluntary intoxication a defence to?

Answer 18

Crimes of specific intent but not to crimes of basic intent.

Question 19

What is the leading case on voluntary intoxication?

Answer 19

Majewski.

Question 20

What was important about the outcome of the decision in the Majewski case?

Answer 20

If a D was so drunk or high on drugs he did not form the MR he can still be convicted of assault. Voluntary intoxication does not negate the MR of crimes of basic intent.

Question 21

What was said about the recklessness test in Majewski?

Answer 21

The taking of drink or drugs is itself a reckless course of conduct which therefore supplies the MR for a crime of basic intent.

Question 22

If a D is not liable for a specific intent offence due to voluntary intoxication what happens?

Answer 22

He may be convicted of a fall back offence of basic intent (R v Lipman) s18 to s20.

Question 23

What is self defence?

Answer 23

A person who uses reasonable force to ward off an attack is acting in self defence. Defence will be allowed if the force was necessary in the circumstances HE believed them to be.

Question 24

What happens when a D mistakenly believes that he needs to use force but that mistaken belief is induced by intoxication?

Answer 24

D cannot rely on self defence in these circumstances (O’Grady; Hatton; s76 criminal justice and immigration act).