WEEK 10 Flashcards
(26 cards)
What are incapacitating defences in criminal law?
Defences that claim a lack of capacity to commit a crime, such as intoxication, insanity, automatism, diminished responsibility, and unfitness to plead.
These defences address situations where an individual’s mental or physical capacity is impaired.
What is the definition of capacity in criminal law?
The ability to grasp or take in impressions, ideas, knowledge; includes intellectual/cognitive, moral, and physical capacity.
Defined as the mental or intellectual receiving power according to the OED.
What is the presumption of capacity in criminal law?
The assumption that individuals have the capacity to understand and control their actions unless proven otherwise.
This presumption can be rebutted in cases of incapacity.
What is unfitness to plead?
A condition where a defendant cannot be tried in the normal court process due to disability, determined by a judge.
Refer to s 4 and 4A, Criminal Procedure (Insanity Act) 1964.
What happens if a defendant is found unfit to plead?
The normal criminal process ends, and the case is tried through a ‘trial of facts’ to determine if the defendant committed the act or omission.
The court only explores actus reus, not mens rea.
What is the age threshold for criminal liability in England and Wales?
The threshold for criminal liability is 10 years old.
This is considered the lowest age in Europe.
What is ‘doli incapax’?
A rebuttable presumption that children aged 10-14 are incapable of forming criminal mens rea.
This principle can be rebutted if the prosecution proves the child knew the acts were ‘seriously wrong’.
What distinguishes insanity from unfitness to plead?
Insanity pertains to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offence, while unfitness to plead concerns their state at the time of trial.
This distinction is critical in determining liability and the trial process.
What is the criticism regarding the age of criminal responsibility in the UK?
Experts argue for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, currently set at 10 years, due to concerns about overcriminalization.
The UN Committee has expressed concerns about the punitive nature of the child justice system.
What does the term ‘denial of offence’ refer to?
When a defendant claims that one or more elements of the offence is absent, such as lacking mens rea.
This is technically not a defence but a negation of a requirement for the offence.
How is intoxication treated in relation to mens rea?
Intoxication can be a denial of mens rea but does not automatically negate it; it depends on the circumstances of the case.
For example, if a defendant was too intoxicated to form intent, they may not meet the mens rea requirement.
What are the two types of intoxication recognized in criminal law?
Voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
Voluntary intoxication occurs when a person knowingly takes a substance, while involuntary intoxication can occur through deception or prescribed medication.
What is the significance of the distinction between basic intent and specific intent crimes?
For basic intent crimes, evidence of intoxication cannot be used to negate mens rea, while for specific intent crimes, it can be used as a defence.
This distinction affects the liability of defendants who claim intoxication.
What does the ‘prior fault’ principle entail?
A defendant cannot rely on intoxication as a defence if their intoxication was caused by their own prior fault.
This principle reinforces personal responsibility for one’s actions leading to intoxication.
What is the definition of ‘basic intent’ crimes?
Crimes where intention or recklessness is an acceptable mens rea (MR)
Examples include Manslaughter, Assault, Battery, Sexual Assault, Rape, and Criminal Damage.
What are some examples of basic intent crimes?
- Manslaughter
- Assault
- Battery (s.47 & s.20 OAPA 1861)
- Sexual Assault (Heard case)
- Rape
- Criminal Damage
Intention or recklessness is sufficient for mens rea in these cases.
What is the definition of ‘specific intent’ crimes?
Crimes where intention only is the acceptable mens rea (MR)
Examples include Murder, s.18 OAPA 1861, Robbery, Burglary (s.9(1)(a)), Theft, and Attempts of these crimes.
What are some examples of specific intent crimes?
- Murder
- s.18 OAPA 1861
- Robbery
- Burglary (s.9(1)(a))
- Theft
- Attempts of crimes of specific intent
Intention is the only acceptable mens rea for these offenses.
What happens if there is a basic intent crime as an alternative to a specific intent crime?
The defendant (D) will be convicted of the basic intent crime
For example, if charged with Murder, D may be convicted of Manslaughter.
What is the ‘Dutch courage rule’?
When D becomes voluntarily intoxicated to commit a specific intent crime, intoxicated mens rea is still mens rea
There is no defense for the intoxication in this case.
In AG for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher, what did Lord Denning state about self-induced drunkenness?
Self-induced drunkenness cannot be used as a defense to a charge of murder or to reduce it to manslaughter
The wickedness of the mind before getting drunk is sufficient for conviction.
When can D lack mens rea (MR) because of intoxication?
When D has become voluntarily intoxicated by a dangerous drug and lacks mens rea for a basic intent offense
D will only be liable if intoxication was the reason for lacking MR.
Provide an example where D would not be liable due to intoxication.
If D trips and breaks V’s vase while intoxicated but would have accidentally damaged it even if sober
Here, D’s intoxication is not the reason for the lack of mens rea.
What is the significance of the case Richardson and Irwin [1999]?
It questions whether D would have foreseen the risk of harm to V if sober
Relevant to determining mens rea in intoxication cases.
