Denials of Offences Flashcards
(34 cards)
1
Q
Loake v CPS [2017]
A
- Insanity is available for strict liability offences
- It is not correct to regard insanity as analogous to a defendant not having the mens rea
- It is possible for someone to have the mens rea for an offence whilst at the same time, because of a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind, not know what he is doing is wrong.
2
Q
DPP v Harper [1997]
A
- restricted the use of M’Naghten in the Magistrates’ Court by ruling the insanity defence only applicable to crimes requiring mens rea or where mens rea is in issue
- overruled by Loake
3
Q
M’Naghten (1843)
A
- sets out insanity rules
- everyone is presumed sane unless:
1. defect of reason
2. from disease of mind
3. not to know nature and quality of act is wrong
4. OR that what he is doing is wrong
4
Q
R v Sullivan [1984]
A
Any disease leading to impairment of the mind was a disease of the mind (in this case epilepsy) even if it is temporary or short in duration
5
Q
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963]
A
- if it is internal -> epilepsy -> it is a disease of the mind -> it is insanity
- tried an automatism plea for murder -> didn’t work because not external
- automatism: involuntary act done by the muscles without any control of the mind
- also, convicted
6
Q
R v Carr-Briant [1943]
A
- burden of proof is on the accused to prove they are insane
7
Q
R v Kemp [1957]
A
- Disease of the mind does not mean disease of the brain, i.e., the disease need not be located at the brain
- here D suffered from hardening arteries -> congestion in the brain led to attack on his wife
8
Q
R v Burgess [1991]
A
Sleepwalking is an internal disease and thus a disease of the mind to which the criminal defence of insanity applied
9
Q
R v Hennessey [1989]
A
- Whether a disease is recurrent is a determining factor in whether it is considered external or internal
- Stress, anxiety and depression is internal
- D was in a state of hyperglycaemia (forgot to take insulin injection -> diabetes main factor -> internal) which was caused or contributed to by mental conditions of stress and depression
10
Q
R v Quick [1973]
A
- forgot to eat after injection -> external factor -> automatism
- D was in a state of hyperglycaemia was caused or contributed to by mental conditions of stress and depression
- Sane automatism is caused by an external factor, while disease of the mind is caused by an internal factor
11
Q
R v Clarke (1972)
A
- need defect of reason, not just absent-mindedness
12
Q
R v Windle [1952]
A
- knew that what he was doing was wrong
- said that they’ll hang him for what he’s done
- insanity doesn’t apply
- insanity focuses on lawfulness, not morality
13
Q
Peter William Coonan (formerly Sutcliffe) [2011]
A
- divine mission to kill prostitutes
- psychiatrics did say there was a mental disorder but not enough to deem him insane
14
Q
R v Johnson [2007]
A
- Knowing that an act was wrong under the M’Nagthen rules for the defence of insanity meant that the defendant knew that his act was illegal, not that it was morally wrong
- falls under insanity -> D stabbed people under delusion
- Psychiatrists agreed that D knew the nature of his acts and that it was against the law
15
Q
R v Keal [2022]
A
- D stabbed his parents and grandmother under psychotic episode
- claimed he had no choice but to do it -> thus he seems to know that it is wrong -> no plea of insanity
16
Q
R v Jan Usman [2023]
A
-
17
Q
Hill v Baxter [1958]
A
- D alleged that he lost consciousness as a result of illness when driving and could not remember what happened
- The defence of automatism negates mens rea, the burden of proof for the defence is on the defendant
- D couldn’t have formed intent for dangerous driving cause he wasn’t conscious
18
Q
Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994]
A
- The defence of automatism requires a total loss of voluntary control
- could react to visual stimuli -> not total loss of control
19
Q
Broome v Perkins (1987)
A
- The Court held that “automatism” implied involuntary movement of the body or limbs and whether this has occurred is a question of law which requires to proven by evidence
- D drove several miles -> must have had some control
20
Q
R v Coley, McGhee and Harris [2013]
A
- once again highlights that total loss of control is required
21
Q
R v T [1990]
A
- T was found suffering from ptsd because of rape
- extraordinary factor = external -> automatism plea satisfied
22
Q
Rabey v The Queen [1980]
A
- threw a rock at V when she rejected him
- these are ordinary stresses of daily life -> not external factor -> not automatism
23
Q
R v Bailey [1983]
A
- Where D committed a crime after become intoxicated from a drug is that non-dangerous, D could still be guilty (and without the benefit of the defence of automatism if he realized a risk of the drug causing aggressive, unpredictable and uncontrolled behaviour
- failed to take food after diabetes injection -> knows the risks
24
Q
R v Hardie [1985]
A
- D under valium
- ## Self-induced automatism caused by drugs not known to lead to aggressive behaviour such as sedatives may provide defence to crimes of basic intent
25
R v Sheehan and Moore [1975]
- killed V in a drunken state
- relevant question was not whether the appellants were capable of forming the mens rea
- it was whether they had in fact formed the mens rea - a drunken intent is still an intent
- The burden of proving mens rea remained on the prosecution
26
R v Mohamadi [2020]
- did the defendant have the mens era to be an accomplice → not whether he was capable of having it
- rules apply not only for a principal offender but also for accessories
27
R v Campaneu [2020]
- charged with murder after a cocaine binge
- court says you only need to give direction about intoxication if D may not have been able to form an intention because they were so intoxicated
28
R v Aidad [2021]
a five day binge
important point about this case: court recognised that sometimes you will need to address intoxication even if the defendant doesn’t mention intoxication – defendant doesn’t need to want to plead intoxication
29
R v Kingston [1995]
- D was a paedophile, drugged by P and left in bed with a V (15yrs)
- P wanted blackmail material on D -> D did indecently assault V
- D was convicted -> appealed arguing that he was drugged
- HoL upheld conviction -> drunken intent is still intent
- HoL stated that his intoxication should be taken into account in terms of sentencing, but it doesn’t acquit him if mens rea was present (even if MR was induced by the alcohol/drugs)
30
R v Allen [1988]
- Knowingly taking a drug but which was of higher potency than you realised is not involuntary intoxication
- if the drug / drink changes from what you expected → then it could become involuntary
31
DPP v Majewski [1977]
- D attacked police officers whilst intoxicated
- Where the defendant does not have the requisite mens rea due to being voluntarily intoxicated, he is not guilty if the crime is one of specific intent, but is guilty if the crime is of basic intent
- prior fault
32
Caldwell v MPC [1982]
- self-induced intoxication is no defence to a crime in which recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea. -> Majewski is authority
- ask whether the predominant mens rea of the offence can be satisfied by recklessness (or negligence or liability is strict). If so it is a crime of basic intent. -> one view
33
R v Heard [2007]
- specific intent crimes are those where the mens rea relates to more than the element of conduct in the actus reus
- It is not a matter of asking whether the crime requires intention
34
R v Lipman [1970]
- L.S.D treated in same manner as alcohol for intoxication rules
- D had gone with his girlfriend to her room where they had both taken LSD → they “tripped” D had the delusion that he was descending to the centre of the earth and being attacked by snakes → D fought them – in reality, D was fighting & strangling his girlfriend to death
CA: for the purpose of criminal responsibility, we see no reason to distinguish between the effect of drugs voluntarily taken
basic intent crime → voluntary intoxication → dangerous drugs = guilty
