Defences for OAPA (Intoxication, Automatism and Insanity)

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • Defences for OAPA
    • Intoxication
      • It must be decided if it is voluntary or involuntary intoxication
        • Drunken Intent is still intent as in the case of Kingston
          • A drunken mistake in self-defence means the defence of self-defence is not available
        • If the D took a legal drugs in a legal manner the defence of intoxication is available to them as they have never been reckless (Hardie)
          • if a D took a legal drug or legal manner and he didn't know it would lead to an automatic state then there is a full defence of automatism
      • It must also be decided if it is a specific or basic intent crime that has been committed
        • The key case that gives the basic rule for intoxication is Majewski. 'Reckless course of conduct' once intoxicated which says you can form the MR for any basic intent offence whilst intoxicated
      • If the MR for the offence is formed before the intoxication then the defence of intoxication cannot be used (Attorney General for N.I v Gallagher
        • Lipman: if a specific intent offence is committed when voluntarily intoxicated but the D didn't form the MR the defence of intoxication can be used by the D
    • Insanity
      • Four elements: defect of reason, disease of the mind, nature and quality of the act and know that their act was legally wrong
        • Defect of reason is the fact that the D is not capable of reason (Clarke)
        • Disease of the mind can be temporary, any part of the body and can also be transitory
        • Problem with diabetes is that it has to be internal for it to be insanity (hyperglycaemia) - Hennessey not Quick (hypoglycaemia)
        • Nature and Quality of the Act: D was in a state of unconsciousness or impaired conciousnessor if the D was conscious they didn't understand or know what they were doing
        • Knowing their act was legally wrong (Windle) - according to the ordinary reasonable standard adopted by the reasonable man
    • Automatism
      • It has to be an external factor that caused the automatic state
        • self-induced automatism can be used for a specific intent offence
      • Definition for Automatsim: 'an act which done by the muscle without any control of the mind such as a spasm, convulsion or reflex action; an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst sleepwalking or suffering from concussion (Bratty v Atorney General for N.I.
        • It can be an involuntary action which allows for a defence of automatism (Hill v Baxter)
          • A judge can allow for automatism to be taken to the jury but they jury may not allow it in some cases depending on the evidence produced
        • cannot be reduced or partial control it has to be a 'total destruction of voluntary control' (Attorney General Reference No2 1992)
        • Untitled

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »