Capacity Defences AO1 Flashcards

1
Q

General rule for voluntary intoxication

A

If voluntarily intoxicated, no defence (exception of specific intent crimes e.g murder, s18 GBH

Basically, voluntarily drunk=reckless at a minimum

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

o’grady

A

Mistake induced by intoxication is no defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

When is involuntary intoxication a defence

A

For specific and basic intent crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Cases for voluntary intoxication (3)

A

DPP v Beard-Voluntary intoxication can be defence for specific intent crime.
D was so intoxicated MR not formed, so not guilty.(Raped a girl and suffocated her, got manslaughter instead as only requires recklessness)

Lipman-usually lessens charge rather than escaping liability if there is a fallback offence (thought he was being attacked by snakes high on LSD, killed his GF, but was guilty of manslaughter as no MR)

Gallagher-drunken intent is still intent (drunk for courage to kill)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

When is voluntary intoxication not a defence, and examples and case

A

For basic intent crimes e.g battery assault ABH

DPP v Majewski-voluntarily intoxicated, got in fights, conviction upheld as was basic intent crimes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What type of defence is involuntary intoxication

A

Absolute-if proved, D acquitted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does involuntary intoxication cover

A

Basic and specific intent crimes, provided MR isn’t formed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Kingston

A

Involuntary intoxication is a defence unless MR formed.

He was drugged, and abused a child and took photos. There was evidence of intention so was convicted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Involuntary intoxication cases (2)

A

Kingston

Hardie-D took Valium, unaware it would affect behaviour, set fire to a wardrobe, therefore involuntary.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Intoxicated mistake

A

If D makes a mistake due to intoxication, it depends on what the mistake was as to whether the defence is available

E.g Lipman had taken LSD recklessly so no defen

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Insanity

A

Act is voluntary, but does not understand nature of act or that it is legally wrong.

D has to prove he was insane on balance of probabilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What case outlines rules on insanity?

A

M’Naghten

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

M’Naghten

A

D became obsessed with PM, decided to shoot him, missed and killed PM secretary.
Found he had extreme paranoia, so not guilty by reason of insanity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

3 stage criteria for insanity

A

Labouring under a defect of reason
Caused by a disease of the mind
And so did not understand the nature/quality of his act, or it was wrong

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Defect of reason case

A

D must be unable to reason, not failure to reason.
Clarke-absentminded is not insane-she retained reason but just did not use it.

insanity does not apply to those who retain reason but do not use in moments of confusion or absentmindedness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Is disease of mind a legal or medical term? Temporary or permanent

A

Legal.

Both.

17
Q

Disease of the mind

A

Any disease that producers a malfunctioning of the mind

18
Q

Disease of the mind cases

A

Sullivan-epileptic fits can be insanity. Can be any part of body provided it effects the mind
Burgess-sleepwalking caused by an internal factor can be insanity
Hennessy-hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) stole a car, was caused by diabetes an internal cause

19
Q

2 ways of proving-Did not know nature/quality of act

A

Unconsciousness/impaired consciousness

Conscious but does not understand/know what he is doing

20
Q

Case for rule 3 of M’Naghten

A

R v Oye
D punched officer. Believed police were demonic and evil spirits. Found he had a psychotic episode, and so didn’t know the nature/quality of his act, so not guilty by reason of insanity

21
Q

‘Did not know what he was doing was wrong’-case

A

Windle-knew nature/quality, and what he was doing was wrong. Said ‘I suppose I’ll hang for this’. So defence by reason of insanity was unavailable

22
Q

Effect of pleading insane

A

Court may impose hospital/supervision order etc