Children (infancy) and insanity at time of trial, intoxication

Question 1

Infancy

Answer 1

Children and Young Persons Act 1993, s 50: child below the age of 10 cannot be convicted of a criminal offence
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s 34: abolished presumption of doli incapax
- R v JTB: confirmed that this defence has been abolished

Question 2

Insanity at time of trial

Answer 2

R v Robertson: accused must be able to challenge jurors, instruct counsel, and understand evidence

Question 3

Intoxication

Answer 3

R v Majewski: self-induced intoxication is not a defence to a criminal charge, but can be evidence of no MR where ‘specific intent’ is needed
- “It is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea in assault cases”
Judicial studies board: “A drunken intent is still intent. What is more, it is not a defence for the defendant to say that he would not have behaved in this way had he not been drunk”
R v Hardie: “if [the jury] came to the conclusion that, as a result of the victim, the appellant was, at the time, unable to appreciate the risks… from his actions they should then consider whether the taking of the Valium was itself reckless”
R v Kingston: “where a defendant knows what he is doing and that it is wrong, internal bodily functions which merely undermine his inhibitions go to mitigation of sentence, even where the bodily malfunction is something for which he is blameless”