Capacity Defences Flashcards
(43 cards)
Who is the burden of proof on for the defence of intoxication?
The prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that D still had the necessary mens rea
What does the defence of intoxication depend on?
Whether D was voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated and whether the offence is one of specific or basic intent
In which case was the distinction between specific and basic intent crimes made?
DPP V Majewski
What are specific intent crimes?
Crimes where the mens rea is only intention
What are basic intent crimes?
When the mens rea is intention or recklessness
What is voluntary intoxication?
When D has chosen to take the intoxicating substance
What is involuntary intoxication?
Where D did not know he was taking an intoxicating substance
What does the case Sheehan and Moore say?
Where D is voluntarily intoxicated, D will have a defence to a specific intent crime of he is so intoxicated that he hasn’t got the mens rea
What happened in Sheehan and Moore?
Ds was drunk and he threw petrol over a homeless man and set him on fire but they were too drunk to have the mens rea
What does the case A-G for Northern Ireland V Gallagher say?
Where D had the necessary mens rea despite his voluntary intoxication then he is guilty of the specific intent crime
What happened in A-G for Northern Ireland V Gallagher?
D bought a knife to kill his wife and a bottle of whisky to give him courage to carry out the murder. A drunken intent is still an intent
What does the case DPP V Majewski say?
For a basic intent crime voluntary intoxication is not a defence
Why is voluntary intoxication not a defence for basic intent crimes?
D is seen as reckless for getting intoxicated in the first place
What does the case Kingston say?
Involuntary intoxication won’t be a defence if D had the mens rea at the time of the offence eventhough D might not have committed the offence without the intoxication removing his inhibitions
What happened in Kingston?
D was spiked then was charged with indecent assault on a teenage boy but he still had formed the mens rea
What does the case Hardie say?
Involuntary intoxication will be a defence to basic intent and specific intent when D didn’t form the mens rea
What happened in Hardie?
D took Valium to calm down but instead he set fire to a wardrobe. He didn’t have the mens rea as he didn’t know Valium would make his behaviour unpredictable
What case are the rules of insanity based on?
M’Naghten
What are the three elements which have to be proved for insanity?
- that at the time of committing the offence, D had a defect of reason
- this defect of reason was a result of a disease of the mind
- and this defect of reason caused D not to know the nature and quality of his ac for not to know what he was doing was wrong
What is the special verdict?
Not guilty by reason of insanity
What does a defect of reason mean?
D was unable to reason at the time he acted
What is not enough for a defect of reason?
Temporary absent-mindedness or confusion
Which case is not a defect of reason?
Clarke
What happened in Clarke?
D absent-mindedly took items from a supermarket
