Mental Capacity Defences Scenario Plans Flashcards
MENTAL CAPACITY DEFENCES (17 cards)
Insanity - Introduction
The defence of insanity is a mental capacity defence, defined in the M’Naghten case. Insanity is a full defence which can be used for all offences apart from those of strict liability. The defence was defined in the M’Naghten case as ‘labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and their quality of the act he was doing, or did he know it, that he did not know that he was doing wrong”.
Insanity - Defect of Reason
The first step to decide whether insanity can be used as a defence, is establishing that there was a defect of reason. This means that the defendant’s powers of reason must be impaired, however it does not include when the defendant failed to act on reason, as held in R V Clarke. The distinction between absentmindedness and having defect of reason caused by disease was outlined in R V Hennessy.
Insanity - Disease of the Mind
It then must be established that the defendant has a ‘disease of the mind’. This is not a medical definition, and may apply to physical and mental conditions provided that they can affect the mind as shown in R V Kemp. It may also affect the defendant transiently, such as through sleepwalking or epilepsy, as shown in R V Burgess.
Insanity - External Factors
However, external factors such as being concussed by an accident, do not fall under insanity, as shown in R V Quick. In addition, voluntary intoxication which leads to a temporary episode does not fall under insanity, as shown in R V Coley.
Insanity - Not Knowing Nature or Quality
The next part of this defence is establishing that the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act. There are two ways this may be established. The first way is establishing that D is unconscious or is in a state of impaired consciousness, the second way is proving that D is conscious, but the medical condition means D does not know what they are doing. This was shown in R V Oye where although the defendant was conscious, he was unaware of what he was doing.
Insanity - Knowing Something is Legally Wrong
Also, if it can be established that, due to a disease of the mind, D did not know what they were doing was illegal, then they can plead insanity. This was shown in R V Windle when although he was mentally ill, he knew what he was doing was legally wrong and therefore could not prove insanity.
Insanity - Special Verdict
If all of these aspects can be proven, then the jury must return a special verdict, ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. In 1991, The Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act extended the sentence to either: a hospital order, a supervision order and an absolute discharge.
Automatism - Introduction
Automatism is a mental capacity defence available against all charges. A successful defence leads to a complete acquittal, due to there being no mens rea or voluntary element. In order to establish this defence, the cause must be external - the example given in Kay V Butterworth is being ‘attacked by a swarm of bees’. The defence of automatism was defined in Bratty V Attorney-General for Northern Ireland as ‘an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as a act dine while suffering from concussion or sleep-walking’.
Automatism - No Fault
The first part of establishing this defence is proving the defendant is at no fault due to an external cause. According to Hill V Baxter, a person should not be liable for crimes done when an external factor leads to them acting automatically. This confirms an earlier case, Kay V Butterworth, where the judgement held that only through losing control due to ‘no fault of his own’ can automatism be used.
Automatism - Loss of Awareness
In order to prove the defendant is not at fault, there must be a total loss of awareness and control. This was shown in Attorney-General’s Ref No2, where although the defendant experienced a partial loss of control, this was not enough to amount to automatism.
Automatism - Self-Induced Automatism
The principles of self-induced automatism were outlined in R V Bailey. This established that automatism can be used for specific-intent offences, such as murder, as the mens rea of the crime cant be established.
Automatism - Basic Intent Offences
In R V Bailey, the Court of Appeal sets out 3 situations for establishing automatism in basic intent offences (recklessness). The first states that if D has been reckless as to getting in an automatic state, this is subjective recklessness. The second states if the automatic state is caused by drink, or illegal drugs, this is recklessness as shown in R V Coley. Finally if D does not know that by doing the action they are likely to commit an offence, the defendant can use automatism, as shown in R V Hardie.
Intoxication - Introduction
automatism cannot be used when the defendant has used drugs or drink, instead the defence of intoxication can be used. intoxication comes from the case of dpp v beard which states the defences can be used in specific intent cases where ‘the state of drunkenness renders the accused incapable of forming such an intention’. intoxication is reckless as shown in app v majewski and so cannot be used in basic intent offences.
Intoxication - Voluntary
if voluntary intoxication is found to negate the mens rea, the crime is downgraded, as shown in r v sheehan v moore. if d has has the necessary meats rea, even though they are intoxicated, they are guilty of the full offences, as shown in ag for ni ghallager.
Intoxication - Past Intox
past intoxication can be used as a defence. this is seen in r v harris, where illness caused by intoxication can reduce the defence to diminished responsibility.
Intoxication - Involuntary
involuntary intoxication is where a defendant is unaware they are taking the substance, such as having a drink spiked. this is shown in r v kingston where it was established that this can be used for all offences, as there has been no recklessness.
Intoxication - Mistakes
mistakes made due to being intoxicated can be used as a defences for specific intent offences. this is because you cant establish the mens rea, as shown in r v lipman. however, r v hatton showed that a mistake on how much force can be used in self defence is not enough alone to create a totaldefence. the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 states that intoxication is not a defence to using more than reasonable force.
