Evaluation of Insanity & Intoxication

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: samia
  • Created on: 03-01-15 15:14
View mindmap
  • Evaluation of Defences
    • Intoxication
      • based on public policy. need to balance D + V's rights.
        • if IT was always a defence, V's right not protected
      • Majewski- held being intoxicated, D was taking a general risk of comitting crime. basic intent = reckless is enough
      • REFORM: consider whether D would have realised the risk if he had not been intoxicated
        • problem: doesn't take into account individual factors/situations
    • Insanity
      • definition medically irrelevant, court doesn't cover those medically insane
        • M'Naughten rules (Byrne) unable to control himself)
      • legal definition is old, new developments not taken into account
        • Royal Commission said it was "obsolete and misleading"
        • psychiatric illness was not understood at the time yet still no changes, though improvements in diagnosis and understand of it
      • insanity and automatism interwined, only diff internal and external factors
      • illogical distinctions (Quick + Hennessy) both diabetics but only 1 succeeded as forgot insulin
      • "insanity" carried social stigma. inappropriate for diabetics
      • too wide. as includes  physical illnesses such as diabetes (Hennessy), heart disease (Kemp), and sleep walkers (Burgess).
      • REFORM: Butler Committee- place burden of proof on prosecution. proof of severe mental disorder should be enough
        • problem: assumes lack of criminal resp.


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »