mental capacity defences

?
What are the three mental capacity defences?
1) insanity 2) automatism 3) intoxication
1 of 56
What is insanity?
a full defence to a criminal offence requiring MR. D must be labouring such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing was wrong
2 of 56
In the defence, what does the defendant have to do?
The defendant has to prove that s/he comes within the legal rules of insanity.
3 of 56
What happens if the defence is successful?
The defendant will receive a 'special verdict' of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
4 of 56
What are the rules of insanity based on?
The rules are based on the case of M'Naghten.
5 of 56
What is the definition that comes from M'Naghten?
'A defect of reason, which must be the result of a disease of the mind, causing the defendant not to know the nature and quality of their act'.
6 of 56
What is meant by defect of reason?
The defendant's powers of reasoning must be impaired. If D is capable of reasoning but has failed to use those powers, then this is not a defect of reason.
7 of 56
R v Clarke
held that the defect of reason must be more than absent-mindedness or confusion.
8 of 56
What is a disease of the mind?
The defect of reason must be due to a disease of the mind. This is a legal term, not a medical one. The disease can be mental or physical which affects the mind.
9 of 56
R v Kemp
suffered from hardening of the arteries. D said it was physical not mental illness, so there was no disease of the mind. The court ruled that his condition cameunder the rules of insanity as they were concerned with 'mind' not brain'.
10 of 56
R v Sullivan
suffered from epilepsy since childhood, and was know to show aggression during fits. Ruled the source of the disease was irrelevant and the duration of impairment, provided that it existed at the time of the act, does not matter.
11 of 56
R v Hennessy
D was a diabetic and needed insulin to control it. D had forgot to take the insulin which caused him to suffer hyperglycemia. The problem was internal so the defence was applicable to D.
12 of 56
R v Burgess
D attacked his girlfriend in his sleep. If the cause of sleepwalking is internal, it is a disease within the definition of insanity.
13 of 56
What are external factors?
D being in a state where s/he does not know what s/he is doing is not a disease but an external cause
14 of 56
R v Quick
Diabetic failed to eat after taking his insulin. This was an external factor, not caused by the drug and so not insanity.
15 of 56
What is voluntary intoxication?
D voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance and causes a temporary psychoticepisode. D cannot use insanity.
16 of 56
R v Coley
D, aged 17, regulary used cannabis. He attacked next door neighbours. D claimed to have no recollection of the events. Insanity not available because of the voluntary intoxication.
17 of 56
What is meant by not knowing the nature or quality of the act?
The physical character of the act is unknown to D.
18 of 56
What are the two ways in which D may not know the nature and quality?
1) D is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness. 2) D is conscious but due to menatl condition does not understand act.
19 of 56
R v Windle
Was suffering from mental disorder killed his wife, who had constantly spoken of committing suicide. He knew what he did was wrong, he was not insane.
20 of 56
R v Johnson
D, paranoid schizophrenic, stabbed his neighbour. Knew he had legally done wrong so not insane under M'Naghten.
21 of 56
What is the special verdict?
when a defendant proves insanity, then the jury must return a verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
22 of 56
What did the Criminal Procedure Act do?
Extended the options for the judge.
23 of 56
What can the judge now impose?
1) hospital order 2) supervision order 3) absolute discharge
24 of 56
What are the evaluation points on insanity?
1) M'Naghten rules 2) legal definition 3) overlap with automatism 4) decision in windle 5) social stigma 6) proof of insanity 7) role of the jury 8) overlap with diminished responsibility
25 of 56
What is automatism?
“An act done by the muscles without any control the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; of an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or sleep-walking."
26 of 56
Where does the definition come from?
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
27 of 56
Why is this a defence?
The AR of a crime committed by D is not voluntary. In addition, D does not have required MR for the offence.
28 of 56
Examples of external causes
1) A blow to the head 2) An attack by a swarm of bees 3) Sneezing 4) Hypnotism 5) Drug effects
29 of 56
What was approved in Hill v Baxter?
No fault when D was in a automatic state though an external cause.
30 of 56
Hill v Baxter
The defendant caused death through driving.voluntary act is required as part of the actus reus of manslaughter. The defendant was not in a state of automatism, rather, he fell asleep, so acted voluntarily in recklessness.
31 of 56
R v T
D took part in a robbery and an assault. Three days previously, she was *****. Her defence was that she was suffering from PTSD from being *****. She said she acted in a dream-like state. The judge allowed the defence automatism but D was convicted.
32 of 56
A-G REF (No 2 of 1992)
a lorry driver, crashed into some cars parked on the hard shoulder. The defence of automatism should not have been left to the jury and that the state described as "driving without awareness" was not capable of founding a defence of automatism.
33 of 56
What is self induced automatism?
D knows that their conduct, is likely to bring on automatic state.
34 of 56
R v Bailey
D was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin. He became aggressive and hit someone over the head with an iron bar. The trial judge had mis-directed the jury. However, the mis-direction did not render the conviction unsafe.
35 of 56
Specific intent offences
Offence charged is one of specific intent, then self-induced automatism can be a defence. D lacks the required MR for the offence.
36 of 56
Basic intent offences
Offence charged is one of basic intent then the law is more complicated. Main rule is that D cannot use the defence of automatism if s/he has brought about the automatic state by being reckless
37 of 56
what is intoxication?
May come about by alcohol, drugs or other substances, like glue sniffing. Doesn’t provide defence but is relevant to as whether D has the required MR for the offence. If they don't have the MR because s/he intoxicated state, may be not guilty
38 of 56
Whether they are guity depends on?
1) Whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary 2) Whether the offence charged is one of specific or basic intent
39 of 56
What do specific intent offences require?
specific intention or intent only, for their MR
40 of 56
What are the relevant specific offences?
1)Murder 2)S.18 OAPA 3)Theft 4)Robbery 5)Burglary
41 of 56
What do basic intent offences require?
those which recklessness is sufficient for the MR
42 of 56
What are the relevant basic offences?
1)Manslaughter 2)** 20 and 47 OAPA 3)Assault 4)Battery
43 of 56
What is volutary intoxication?
D choses to take an intoxicating substance. Can also occur when D knows that effect of a prescribed drug will make him intoxicating
44 of 56
Voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences
Can negate the MR for a specific intent offence. If D is so intoxicated that they have not formed the MR for the offence they’re not guilty.
45 of 56
where does the rule come from?
DPP v Beard. Where D has the necessary MR despite their intoxicated state, they are guilty of the offence.
46 of 56
Voluntary intoxication and basic intent
Offence charged is one of basic intent then intoxication is not a defence. Voluntarily becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless course of conduct, and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary MR
47 of 56
what is the leading case?
DPP v Majewski
48 of 56
Past intoxication
Where D is suffering from a mental disorder due to past intoxication, he can use this as a defence.
49 of 56
What is involuntary intoxication?
D is mistaken about a key fact because s/he is intoxicated, then it depends on what the mistake was about as to whether s/he has a defence or not
50 of 56
R v Lipman
Did not have specific intention for murder as he thought he was killing a snake. Lipman took LSD voluntarily which was ‘a reckless course of conduct’
51 of 56
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
This Act now makes it clear that a mistaken belief caused through D’s voluntary intoxication cannot be used for of self-defence, defence of another or prevention of crime.
52 of 56
What does S. 76 of the CJIA state?
reasonable force may be used for purpose of self-defence, defence of another or prevention of crime.
53 of 56
What does s. 76 (5) say?
'does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced’
54 of 56
What is the exception?
An exception of the rule on intoxicated mistake is Jaggard v Dickinson
55 of 56
S. 5 of the Criminal Damage Act allows what?
An honest belief that the person to whom the property belonged would have consented to the damage or destruction as a lawful excuse to a charge of criminal damage, whether or not the belief is justified
56 of 56

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What is insanity?

Back

a full defence to a criminal offence requiring MR. D must be labouring such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing was wrong

Card 3

Front

In the defence, what does the defendant have to do?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

What happens if the defence is successful?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What are the rules of insanity based on?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »