#Exam1(2)- Defences mental capacity Flashcards Preview

#Law crime and legal s > #Exam1(2)- Defences mental capacity > Flashcards

Flashcards in #Exam1(2)- Defences mental capacity Deck (40)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

what are the mental capacity defences

A

insanity, automatism and intoxication

2
Q

what crime can’t insanity be used for

A

drunk driving it is strict liability

3
Q

what is case is insanity based on

A

M’Naghten

4
Q

what are the three rules M’naghten provided

A

defect of reason
result of disease of mind
caused D not to know nature of offence and not to realise it was wrong

5
Q

who must prove insanity

A

the defence

6
Q

what does defect of reason mean

A

their reasoning must have become impaired

7
Q

what happened in R v Clarke

A

quashed conviction because had absentmindedness- defect of reason

8
Q

Disease of mind is

A

a legal definition, which can be either a physical or mental

9
Q

R v Kemp

A

hardening arteries causes him to attack wife COA found that this come under disease of mind

10
Q

R v Sullivan

A

mans epilepsy was long term. he ended up attacking 80 year old man. upheld conviction because it didn’t exist at time of attack

11
Q

R v Hennessy

A

shows that diabetes can fall under insanity if it effects the mind

12
Q

what did R v Burgess find

A

D attacking his girlfriend in his sleep due to sleep walking was insanity
external causes= automatism

13
Q

what did R v Quick show

A

diabetics can’t use insanity as an excuse if they haven’t taken insulin- this is an external cause

14
Q

can a defendant use the defence of insanity if they have voluntarily taken a intoxicating substance and they have a psychotic episode

A

no

15
Q

what does R v Coley show

A

couldn’t use insanity for almost killing neighbors as it was self induced psychosis, he couldn’t use automatism for same reason.

16
Q

what does not knowing nature of the act mean

A

they have impaired consciousness

they do not understand what they are doing

17
Q

what does R v Oye show

A

he could use NGBRI because he thought police officers were demons and this shows he didn’t understand quality of the act

18
Q

what does R v Windle show

A

for all someone may commit a crime and have a disease of mind. they still can’t use defence if they know they are legally wrong

19
Q

how is R V Johnson similar to windle

A

the psychiatrists pointed out that like Windle, Johnson realized what he done was legally wrong

20
Q

what did the Criminal procedure act 1991 do

A

gave the following options to judges for sentencing

hospital order, supervision order, absolute discharge

21
Q

evaluate insanity

A

M’Naghten rules- out of date low knowledge on medical issues
Legal definition- groups like psychopaths not covered
overlap with automatism- confusing to see whether due to external causes or mental illness
social stigma- insanity carries this
Windle- prevents those who may need mental help getting it
EU CHR- d has to proves insanity- goes against article 6 of HRA.
juries- have to decide whether someone is insane or not.

22
Q

what are proposals for reforming insanity

A

RC- suggest including those with irresistible urges
1975- Butler committee and in 1789 LC suggest rename to ‘mental disorder’
none of these have been done , however giving judges more options gave them more suitable sentences

23
Q

what are the two types of automatism

A

insane and non insane automatism

24
Q

what is covered by non insane automatism

A

blow to head, swarm of bees, sneezing, hypnosis, drugs

25
Q

Hill v Baxter

A

couldn’t use defence as it was up to him to exit the ‘ automatic state’

26
Q

R V T

A

D was raped and claimed PTSD was excuse for bank robbery. judge allowed jury to decide to which they convicted her.

27
Q

Attorney generals reference 1993

A

his trance entered while driving on motorway COA held only partial loss of control and not automatism

28
Q

what does R V Bailey raise the issue of

A

self induced automatism, failed to eat enough after taking insulin, can’t use defence

29
Q

what must be proven for automatism

A
external cause- non insane automatism
total destruction of voluntary control
was the automatism self induced ? 
was D reckless getting into automatic state- no all offences
yes- specifc intenet
30
Q

what does R v Hardie show

A

he could use automatism as the valium wasn’t expcted to make him angry

31
Q

evaluate automatism

A

unclear whether defence for AR or MR. If AR it could be argued to be a defence for strict liability crimes
complete defence- may need help
hard to distinguish between insane and non insane
sleepwalking is sometimes considered as insane and non insane.

32
Q

what are the rules on voluntary intoxication

A

SI- if d has intent they are guilty - Gallagher
if no Mr then they are not guilty
BI-Becoming intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct - Majewski- D is guilty

33
Q

what are the rules of involuntary intoxication

A

SI- if d has MR they are guilty- Kingston
no mr not guilty- hardie
BI- if D not reckless to getting intoxicated so not guilty

34
Q

what are the specific intent rules regarding drunken mistake

A

if mistake negates mr then not guilty
if mistake is about need to defend oneself then guilty still both s and b offences (O’grady /Hatton)
cant rely on mistaken belief for self defence

35
Q

what is the basic intent rule for drunken mistakes

A

this is a reckless course of conduct so the defendant is guilty.

36
Q

R v sheehan and moore

A

two drunk men set fire to a tramp- given conviction of mansluaghter and not murder

37
Q

A- g for NI v Gallagher

A

man drinks whiskey for dutch courage- still murder

38
Q

Harris

A

man suffered hallucinations after he stops drinking he then hears voices telling him to committ arson- allowed defence

39
Q

r v kingston

A

man is spiked and blackmailed and he molests a boy- still couldn’t use defence as he had MR.

40
Q

R v Lipman

A

LSD trip causes man to think he is being attacked by snakes. convicted of manslaughter as he was reckless to taking LSD.