Mental Capacity Defences Flashcards
(19 cards)
Involuntary intoxication Definition
Occurs when a person is intoxicated without their knowledge or consent. This can be a defence to both specific and basic intent crimes, if it can be shown that the D was so intoxicated they could not form the Mens Rea.
Involuntary intoxication Full Defence
Depends if the D is so intoxicated so as to being incapable of forming the Man Rea, Complete Defence
Involuntary intoxication Can still be guilty
Depends if the D is intoxicated but still has the intent to form the Mens Rea, Can still be guilty.
Involuntary intoxication R v Kingston
even though he was involuntary intoxicated, he sill formed the necessary intent - no defence.
Involuntary intoxication R v Hardie
- Valium hod unexpected effect
- Court allowed appeal and accepted it could be involuntary intoxication.
Voluntary Intoxication Definition
covers effects of alcohol, drugs and other substances such as solvents. We cannot usually punish someone who cant form the Mens Rea. However, this must be balanced with punishing people who commit crimes while intoxicated.
Voluntary intoxication specific intent
Crimes where prosecution must prove intent (Mens Rea). May be a defence if it prevents D from forming the specific intent required.
Voluntary intoxication specific intent Case Sheehan and Moore
convicted of manslaughter instead of murder as too intoxicatedd to form Mens Rea.
Voluntary intoxication specific intent Case R v Gallagher
Intention was formed before drinking
Voluntary Basic Intent
These involve recklessness. Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to these crimes.
Voluntary Basic Intent Case R v Majewski
Getting voluntary intoxicated is itself reckless, satisfying the Mens Rea for basic intent crimes.
Insanity Definition
“Labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”
Insanity 1st part of test Defect of reason M’Naghten Rules
‘deprival of this powers of reasoning.” (R v Clarke) - mere moments of absent-minded don’t count. E.G Diabetes
Insanity 2nd part of test Disease of the mind M’Naghten Rules
- A legal (not medical) term.
- can be a permanent or temporary condition affecting the mind.
(R v Burgess) - Steep walking
Insanity 3rd part of test Not knowing the nature and quality of the act or that its wrong M’Naghten Rules
Nature and quality: didnt understand what they were physically doing
Wrong: didnt understand that it was legally wrong. (R v Windle) - “I suppose they’ll hang me for this,” showing awareness it was wrong
Automatism Definition
where a person’s consciousness is so impaired that they are acting in a state of physical involuntariness.
Therefore, cannot be held responsible for their involuntary action.
Automatism 1st part of test A total loss of voluntary control
partial control is not enough. AG Ref no2 of 1992 - lorry driver in a trance-like state has some control, defence failed.
Automatism 2nd part of test External Cause
The automatism must stem from an external factor. E.G Insulin, hand injury, concussion.
(R v T) - argued that she was in a dream state and suffered
PTSD as a result of her being raped.
Automatism 3rd part of test Not Self Induced
Is the automatism is caused by voluntary intoxication or deliberately taking risks, defence will fail.
(R v Coley) - Induced his own automatism (drugs)
- Defence not available
