#Exam1(2)- Defences mental capacity

Question 1

what are the mental capacity defences

Answer 1

insanity, automatism and intoxication

Question 2

what crime can’t insanity be used for

Answer 2

drunk driving it is strict liability

Question 3

what is case is insanity based on

Answer 3

M’Naghten

Question 4

what are the three rules M’naghten provided

Answer 4

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

Question 5

who must prove insanity

Answer 5

the defence

Question 6

what does defect of reason mean

Answer 6

their reasoning must have become impaired

Question 7

what happened in R v Clarke

Answer 7

quashed conviction because had absentmindedness- defect of reason

Question 8

Disease of mind is

Answer 8

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

Question 9

R v Kemp

Answer 9

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

Question 10

R v Sullivan

Answer 10

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

Question 11

R v Hennessy

Answer 11

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

Question 12

what did R v Burgess find

Answer 12

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

Question 13

what did R v Quick show

Answer 13

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

Question 14

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

Answer 14

no

Question 15

what does R v Coley show

Answer 15

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

Question 16

what does not knowing nature of the act mean

Answer 16

they have impaired consciousness

they do not understand what they are doing

Question 17

what does R v Oye show

Answer 17

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

Question 18

what does R v Windle show

Answer 18

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

Question 19

how is R V Johnson similar to windle

Answer 19

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

Question 20

what did the Criminal procedure act 1991 do

Answer 20

gave the following options to judges for sentencing

hospital order, supervision order, absolute discharge

Question 21

evaluate insanity

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

what are proposals for reforming insanity

Answer 22

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

Question 23

what are the two types of automatism

Answer 23

insane and non insane automatism

Question 24

what is covered by non insane automatism

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Hill v Baxter

Answer 25

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

Question 26

R V T

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Attorney generals reference 1993

Answer 27

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

Question 28

what does R V Bailey raise the issue of

Answer 28

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

Question 29

what must be proven for automatism

Answer 29

``` 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 ```

Question 30

what does R v Hardie show

Answer 30

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

Question 31

evaluate automatism

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

what are the rules on voluntary intoxication

Answer 32

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

Question 33

what are the rules of involuntary intoxication

Answer 33

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

Question 34

what are the specific intent rules regarding drunken mistake

Answer 34

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

Question 35

what is the basic intent rule for drunken mistakes

Answer 35

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

Question 36

R v sheehan and moore

Answer 36

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

Question 37

A- g for NI v Gallagher

Answer 37

man drinks whiskey for dutch courage- still murder

Question 38

Harris

Answer 38

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

Question 39

r v kingston

Answer 39

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

Question 40

R v Lipman

Answer 40

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