Criminal - Defences Flashcards
Insanity and automatism. What’s the difference? And who set it out?
Insane automatism - internal factors - need medical evidence to prove insanity on the balance of probs
Non-insane automatism - external factors (e.g. A swarm of bees when driving)
Lord Denning set this out in Bratty.
Any disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind.
What is the current law on insanity?
McNaghten
Defect if reason or disease of the mind
To establish the defence of insanity you need to prove that st the time of committing the act D was under a defect of reason (disease of mind) as to not know the NATURE AND QUALITY of the act, OR if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong.
D has to raise medical evidence. Balance of probs.
Criticism of these rules: sometimes insane people are still capable of recognising that crime is wrong. SO the defence of insanity has to be a question of law, and not of medical evidence!
Which case explicitly says insanity is a question of law and not one of medical evidence?
Coley, McGhee and Harris 2013
This was a borderline case and a case of voluntary intoxication.
Video game sequence was acted out - entered a neighbour’s house in a balaclava, injured V with a knife.
Court treated this as a case of voluntary intoxication. Can’t treat an everyday defect of reason like a disease of the mind.
It is a q of law, and have to establish that the disease of the mind was operating at the time D committed the act.
On whom is the burden shifted to prove non-insane automatism?
On the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt. Needs to be actual and total destruction of voluntary control.
This is easier to prove and use as a defence (compared with insane automatism)
Give 2 examples of successful use of the as a defence.
Sleepwalking (Burgess) said was an internal factor
Epilepsy (Sullivan) even if only a one-off it would be treated as an internal factor, and therefore insanity.
Note that Coley, McGhee and Harris was self-induced automatism (was treated as a case of voluntary intoxication, and not insanity)
What are the three cases to remember on diabetes?
Quick - external - took too much insulin - so non-insane automatism defence which led to aquittal
Hennessy - internal - didn’t take enough insulin - insanity defence applied.
Bailey - failed to take food after insulin - treated as an intoxicant, so was a case of self-induced automatism (drink and drugs)
What are the two cases which show successful application of the defence of non-insane automatism?
Quick - took too much insulin, so treated as an external factor.
R v T 1990
PTSD due to external factor of rape
3 days after the rape committed robbery occasioning assault and ABH
Judge allowed the jury to consider the defence of non-insane automatism due to the dissociative state caused by the external factor (rape)
Is intoxication a defence?
It is not a defence, but may prevent D from forming the men’s rea
OR
It can operate in conjunction with another defence
The question will always be whether or not D actually formed the mens rea (fact), not whether he had the capacity to form it.
Can a D form the mens rea while intoxicated? Case? What was the other point of law in this case?
Yes.
Kingston
Paedophilic tendencies. Drugs slipped into drink, argued involuntary intox.
Court: He formed the mens rea despite the intoxication, so no defence.
There is no need to spake a distinction between basic and specific intent crimes in cases of involuntary intoxication. Just have to look at the timing and decide if D formed the mens rea or not.
If D didn’t form the mens rea due to voluntary intoxication, then it is not relevant to liability, but it will mitigate the sentence somewhat.
On whom is the burden of proof for the operation of intoxication as a defence?
Burden on D to raise on evidence. If D manages to raise evidence, then burden shifts to prosecution to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that D actually formed the mens rea.
What are specific intent crimes? Which two cases would you use to highlight these in relation to intoxication?
Murder and s.18
I.e. Crimes where intention is the only form of mens rea (Majewski)
Intention = intention to bring about a particular consequence or result (Heard)
Majewski
This case is the authority on the need to distinguish between basic and specific intent crimes
What are the different questions you need to ask when a crime is one of basic intent? Specific intent? Case?
Basic: was D reckless in becoming intoxicated? (Majewski)
Specific: despite the intoxication, did D manage to form the mens rea? (Majewski)
What is the difference in intention between basic and specific intent crimes? Case?
Basic - intention is intention to commit the ACT and not the consequence. (Heard)
Specific - intention is intention to bring about a particular consequence or result. (Heard)
If D knows he is drinking but is mistaken as to the strength will this be voluntary or involuntary intox?
Voluntary (Allen)
What would be an example of non-dangerous drugs? How are cases like these treated?
Sleeping pills, Valium (Hardie)
Treated like cases of involuntary intoxication, so no distinction specific and basic intent crime needed.
Hardie - had never taken Valium before, criminal damage - set wardrobes alight. Didn’t know what he was doing so no liability.
Have to look at TIMING - did he form the mens rea?
Treated like INvoluntary intox case.
