Denials of an offence

Question 1

what is the concept of doli incapax?

Answer 1

incapable of committing a criminal offence- applies to children under the age of 10

Question 2

What would happen if an adult persuades a child aged 9 to steal from a shop?

Answer 2

the child cannot be convicted under doli incapax principle, but the adult may through an innocent agent

Question 3

where is the ‘fitness to plead’ procedure located?

Answer 3

ss.4,4a and 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964

Question 4

fitness to plead factors- case law

Answer 4

Pritchard [1836]; John M [2003]

Question 5

insanity is a general defence and can be pleaded to any offence

Answer 5

Loake v CPS [2017]

Question 6

Governs the defence of insanity- case of murder of Sir Robert Peel’s secretary

Answer 6

M’Naghen Rules [1843]

Question 6

a mere absentmindedness is not a ‘defect of reason’

Answer 6

Clarke [1972]- stole goods from a supermarket

Question 7

cerebral tumour is a disease of the mind

Answer 7

Bratty [1963]

Question 8

arteriosclerosis- congestion of blood in the brain leading to unconsciousness is also a disease of the mind-

Answer 8

Kemp [1957]- D wanted to plead automatism, judge left insanity to the jury

Question 9

epilepsy amounts to insanity

Answer 9

Sullivan [1984]

Question 10

sleepwalking is also classified as insanty

Answer 10

Burgess [1991]

Question 11

reasoning behind the defence of insanity

Answer 11

protect society from dangerous conduct, which is prone to reoccur

Question 12

hyperglycemia- high blood sugar-internal

Answer 12

only insanity is available- Hennessy [1989]

Question 13

hypoglycaemia- low blood sugar- external

Answer 13

automatism- injection caused excess insulin-

Question 14

for the defence of insanity, when asking whether D knew that the act was wrong- a legal standard applies; not moral

Answer 14

Windle [1952]; Johnson [2007]

Question 15

no defence for ‘irresistible impulse’

Answer 15

Kopsch [1927]; Sodeman [1936]

Question 16

an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind

Answer 16

Lord Denning in Bratty [1963]- automatism

Question 17

there must be a total loss of voluntary control

Answer 17

Broome v Pekins [1987]

Question 18

a swarm of bees example; external factor

Answer 18

Hill v Baxter [1958]

Question 19

what if D places his foot on the accelerator rather than the brake pedal of his car? Can that constitute a muscle spasm, hence allow for the defence of automatism?

Answer 19

AG’s Ref. [2001]-not available when D’s action was a voluntary physical movement

Question 20

hypoglycaemia- low blood sugar-case law

Answer 20

Quick and Paddison [1973]; Bingham [1991]

Question 21

PTSD causing a dissociative state will allow for the defence of automatism

Answer 21

T [1990]- D had been raped 3 days prior to the offence, court allowed her to plead automatism as there was a total loss of control

Question 22

what is a crime of basic intent?

Answer 22

a crime which can be committed with a lesser mens rea- i.e recklessnesss

Question 23

what is a specific intent crime?

Answer 23

a crime which requires intention as the mens rea

Question 24

voluntary intoxication cannot be a defence to a crime of basic intent

Answer 24

Lipman [1970]- killed gf, whilst on LCD; rules in DPP v Majewski [1977]

Question 25

Voluntary intoxication- a difference is drawn between ‘dangerous’ and ‘non-dangerous drugs’- give contrasting case law

Answer 25

contrast LCD- Lipman vs. Bailey [1983] insulin

Question 26

drugged intent is still intent; drunken intent is still intent

Answer 26

even when involuntarily intoxicated, a defendant must lack the mens rea in order to rely on this as a defence. If MR is established is not negated by D’s intoxicated state
drugs- Kingston [1995]; Sheehan and Moore[1975]- alcohol

Question 27

uncertainty for trial judges is present on when to give the Sheehan Direction- inv. intoxication and MR

Answer 27

Aidid v R [2021]

Question 28

involuntary intoxication- valium tablets- acquitted

Answer 28

Hardie [1985]- set fire to a wardrobe

Question 29

D’s conduct in becoming drunk is reckless

Answer 29

satisfies the MR for basic intent crimes- DPP v Majewki [1977]

Question 30

Why is a defendant ill advise to plead voluntary intoxication even to specific intent crimes?

Answer 30

D would often be charged with the lesser, baSic intent offence
for example- s.18 OAPA to s.20 OAPA

Question 31

rape is a crime of basic intent

Answer 31

Heard [2007]`

Question 32

why is the case of Majewski so widely crtisised?

Answer 32

Violation of the actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea- no man is guilty of a crime unless he has a guilty mind
contravention of s.8 of the Criminal Justice ct 1967- requires a jury to take into account all of the evidence when concluding whether D foresaw the consequences
no coincidence of AR and MR- recklessness is in existence before committing the AR in voluntary intoxication
too much reliance on policy- protecting the public

Question 33

What is Dutch courage? Can intoxication be a defence?

Answer 33

deliberate consumption of alcohol in order to gin confidence to commit a criminal offence
intoxication is no defence- Gallagher [1963]`

Question 34

when intoxicated self-defence is no defence?

Answer 34

O’Grady [1987]

Question 35

how does intoxication interact with automatism and insanity defences?

Answer 35

automatism is not available- Lipman [1970]
insanity is subject to M’Naghten Rules

Question 36

sorry dad it’s not me I am sorry; they hang me for this- both showed that insanity will not be available, why? and which cases is this from?

Answer 36

R v Keal [2022]; White [1952]- Ds knew their act is either morally or legally wrong, so requirements for insanity not fullfilled

Question 37

recent unfitness to plead, unsuccessful case

Answer 37

Ihenacho [2021]