Denial Flashcards
(28 cards)
elaborate on Denial: intoxication
Intoxication is not a defence but a denial of MR when D claims they lacked MR due to their intoxicated state
what is an intoxicated MR
An intoxicated MR remains valid - burden is on the prosecution to prove MR exists not D to prove their innocence
R v Kingston (1994)
when in business dispute D drugs V and 15 year old boy causing V to indulge in sexual acts which D videoed - V only done this due to being drugged - urges would of been under control if wasn’t for intoxication
what is liability via intoxication
Voluntary
elaborate on liability via intoxication
voluntary intoxication can increase liability and D must meet 4 requirements
-voluntary intoxication
-offence must be basic intent
-intoxicant must be dangerous
-Lack of MR due to intoxication must be evident
R v Taj (2018)
held psychosis was prev state of intoxication- effect of drugs ended but he was still in psychotic state - intoxication rule still applied and was held liable for attempted murder of man
R v Harris (2013)
D set fire to house due to psychotic episode brought on by binge drinking
explain Voluntary intoxication
Was D intoxicated, was it voluntary
includes substance influence or withdrawal
addiction without drugs in system is intoxication
involuntary intoxication negates MR
R v Allen (1988)
sexually assaulted someone after he drank wine he thought was low alcohol - lack of awareness didn’t render intoxication as involuntary as he still consumed alcohol- held liable
DPP v Majewski (1977)
involved in pub fight and punched owner and charged with gbh- he’d taken drugs and alcohol - voluntary intoxication can’t be used for basic offence
R v Bailey (1983)
took insulin but failed to eat properly- attacked ex gf bf with piece of piping- claimed low blood was why he done this - convicted
R v Hardie (1985)
took valium tablets perscribed to gf and fell asleep- was unable to remember periods following this and set fire to wardrobe in his room- intoxication applied as wasn’t aware of drugs effect and used as sedative
R v Richardson and Irwin (1999)
uni students picked up other student while drunk and threw them over balcony - charged with inflicting gbh - on appeal convictions quashed
Explain Dutch courage liability
If D intoxicates themselves intentionally to commit crimes intoxication does not negate MR
AG for NI v Gallagher (1963)
drank alcohol so he could kill his wife- convicted as dutch courage rule - MR not negated
explain definition of Automatism
-unconscious involuntary actions where the mind does not accompany the physical act
-total lack of voluntary control, irrational or erratic voluntary actions = control
what are the requirements to plead automatism
-complete loss of voluntary control
-caused by an external factor
-no fault in losing capacity
Broome v Perkins (1987)
driving while hypoglycaemic - automatism not applicable as D’s mind was controlling his limbs
R v Coley (2013)
C aged 17 was heavy cannabis user who claimed he blacked out when he attacked a neighbour with knife - was convicted of attempted murder
R v quick (1973)
nurse at hospital was sufferer of hypoglycaemia- took episode and attacked patient - automatism applied as was naturally occurring lack of insulin- not convicted
what is the definition of insanity
Internal causes of lack of responsibility- distinguished from automatism
what are the M’Naughton rules
1) Disease of the mind causes a defect of reason
2) result in lack of responsibility as D did not know nature or quality of act/ D did not know act was wrong
what are the key points elements of insanity
-Disease of the mind- caused by lack of responsibility
-Defect of reason- cannot think or reason properly
-Lack of responsibility- physically unaware of their act and wrongness
what is the verdict and outcomes of insanity
Not guilty by reason of insanity- D can appeal this
hospital order, supervision, absolute discharge
