Insanity/automatism

Question 1

Defence of insanity, stages:

Answer 1

1. Defect of reason;
2. Disease of the mind;
3. Nature and quality of his act/that the act was wrong.

Question 2

1. Defect of reason, info and case:

Answer 2

Defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising the ordinary powers of reasoning.

R v Clarke
Facts: defendant charged with theft after putting groceries in her bag. Claimed acted absent-mindedly whilst suffering from depression.
Principle: held that a ‘defect of reason’ required inability to exercise reason rather than failure to do so at the time. Inability, not failure.

Question 3

2. Disease of the mind, info and case:

Answer 3

Definition has moved far away from the medical conception of insanity.

R v Sullivan
Facts: the defendant caused GBH during an epileptic fit.
Principle: the HoL held that the nature of the disease, physical or psychological, was irrelevant provided it affected the ‘mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding’ at the time of the offence.

Question 4

(3) Nature and quality of the act, info:

Answer 4

Requires a lack of awareness of the physical nature of the act. There must be a difference between the defendant’s action and what he thinks he is doing.

Question 5

(3) Knowledge that the act is wrong, info and case:

Answer 5

If the defendant is aware of the nature and quality of the act, he may still raise insanity in his defence if he does not know that his actions are wrong (legally).

R v Windle
Facts: defendant medically insane, gave suicidal wife an overdose. Upon arrest, made reference to likelihood that would hang for his actions.
Principle: ‘wrong’ means ‘contrary to the law’. Defendant’s comment showed awareness that his conduct was contrary to the law so insanity was not established.

Question 6

Automatism, stages:

Answer 6

1. Complete loss of control;
2. An external cause;
3. Automatism must not be self-induced.

Question 7

1. Complete loss of control, info and case:

Answer 7

Based on involuntary actions, defendant must suffer complete loss of control.

Broome v Perkins
Facts: defendant sought to rely on automatism for charges arising from erratic driving whilst in hypoglycaemic shock.
Principle: automatism requires a complete loss of control. The defendant maintained some control by steering and breaking.

Question 8

2. External cause, info:

Answer 8

The distinction between automatism and insanity is based upon external and internal causes. External cause, such as a blow to the head, gives rise to automatism.

Question 9

3. Automatism must not be self-induced, info and case:

Answer 9

Automatism leads to acquittal in recognition that the defendant’s ability to control his actions render him blameless for this behaviour.

R v Bailey
Facts: failing to eat after taking insulin, despite awareness that this could lead to uncontrolled behaviour, amounted to self-induced automatism.

Question 10

Intoxication, dutch courage:

Answer 10

AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
Facts: defendant decided to kill his wife, and in doing so, bought a whiskey and a knife, to give himself the courage to go through with it. Once drunk, slit wife’s throat, claimed he was so intoxicated he was incapable of forming the intention to kill at the time he killed his wife.
Principle: a person who forms an intention to kill whilst sober and drinks to give himself Dutch courage to do the killing, cannot rely on intoxication to avoid liability.

Lord Denning: “the wickedness of his mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn him.”

Question 11

Intoxication, basic intent:

Answer 11

DPP v Majewski
Facts: the defendant attacked a police officer whilst voluntarily intoxicated. He argued that he was so intoxicated he could not form the requisite mens rea.
Principle: the effect of the intoxication on the defendant’s state of mind was only relevant to crimes of specific intent. In crimes of basic intent, the defendant’s recklessness in taking drugs that rendered his behaviour uncontrolled was in itself sufficient to substitute for mens rea.

Question 12

Involuntary intoxication, cases:

Answer 12

R v Hardie
Facts: took Valium, usually calming but set house on fire.
Principle: Valium known for its sedative effects. Consumption of non-dangerous drugs would amount to involuntary intoxication unless the consumption itself was reckless.

R v Kingston
Facts: defendant drugged without knowledge for blackmailing, committed indecent act with drugged young male. Claimed drugs eroded his usually controlled paedophillic urges.
Principle: although the defendant’s will was weakened, still aware of his situation and knew his actions were wrong. Had mens rea for offence.

Question 13

Self-defence statute:

Answer 13

s. 76 of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Question 14

Elements of self-defence:

Answer 14

Self-defence must involve ‘reasonable force’: s. 76(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
This has two elements:
- force must be necessary;
- force must be proportionate.

Question 15

Necessity of force, info:

Answer 15

Must be judged from the defendant’s perspective, so the key question is ‘did the defendant think he needed to use force to protect himself, his property….?’

Question 16

Self-defence, mistaken belief:

Answer 16

R v Williams (Gladstone)
Facts: defendant observed one man attack another. He intervened and punched the attacker to protect the victim. However, the attacker had been trying to detain a man who had just committed a robbery, so the defendant was charged and sought to rely on self-defence.
Principle: the reasonableness of the defendant’s actions must be judged on the facts as he believed them to be. Provided the mistaken belief was honestly held, it is immaterial that the mistake was not reasonable.
Reinforced by s. 76(3).

Question 17

Mistaken belief limited by:

Answer 17

• Mental illness (R v Martin (Anthony));

- Consumption of drugs or alcohol (R v O’Grady).

Question 18

Self-defence, duty to retreat:

Answer 18

In R v Bird, said that an attempt to retreat demonstrated an unwillingness to fight. If the defendant had the opportunity to retreat but did not do so, it is not fatal to reliance on self-defence, but must be shown that was reasonable to stand his ground.

Question 19

Self-defence, pre-emptive force:

Answer 19

Beckford v R
Facts: the defendant, a police officer, shot and killed an armed man who had been threatening others with a gun.
Principle: Lord Griffiths, “a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for the assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike.”

Question 20

Self-defence, may arm himself:

Answer 20

Re AG Ref (No. 2). Not only may a person resort to force in order to prevent an unanticipated attack, it has been held that he may arm himself in order to do so.

Question 21

Self-defence, level of force:

Answer 21

Once established whether it was necessary, must establish whether the level of force used was reasonable.
The general rule is that the force used must be no more than necessary: must be proportionate to the threat.

Question 22

Test for duress:

Answer 22

R v Howe
Facts: defendant sought to rely on duress as a defence to murder on the basis that he believed that he would be killed if he did not kill the victim as instructed.
Principle: the HoL upheld the two-stage test outline in Graham.

R v Graham

1. Defendant compelled to act because on the basis of the circumstances as he believed them to be, thought life was in immediate danger;
2. Would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the defendant’s characteristics have responded in the same way to his threats.

Question 23

Duress, immediacy:

Answer 23

R v Hudson and Taylor
Facts: defendants gave false evidence which led to acquittal of accused, acting under future threat of violence.
Principle: not whether the threats could be carried out immediately, but were acting on the defendant at the time.

Question 24

Duress, causal nexus:

Answer 24

R v Cole
Facts: defendant threatened with violence if did not repay money. In desperation, committed two armed robberies.
Principle: duress was not available as threats did not make defendant commit robbery. Decision to offend was a free choice.

Question 25

Duress, unavailable:

Answer 25

1. Voluntary association with a criminal gang;

2. Commission of murder or attempted murder.

Question 26

Duress, voluntary association with criminal organisations:

Answer 26

R v Sharp.

Question 27

Duress of circumstances:

Answer 27

R v Willer
Facts: escaping threatening youths in car chase, drove through pedestrian precinct.
Principle: “wholly driven by force of circumstances.”