Defences One Flashcards

Question

“Not Knowing It Was Wrong” | Insanity

Answer 1

If you know it is legally wrong then you fail this test Windle [1952]. D gave his wife an overdose. Said, "I suppose they’ll hang me for this" — shows he knew it was wrong, so insanity failed.

Answer 2

**Burgess (1991) ** D wounds friend while sleepwalking: attacks her with bottle and video recorder, grabs her neck. D argues automatism. HoL: Sleepwalking with violence  disease of the mind  insanity Legal definition of disease of the mind Law Commission: Not medical terms, outdated legal terms Social protection v. fair labelling?

Answer 3

Defect of reason caused by disease of the mind which causes D: Not to know the nature and quality of the act Profound delusions/hallucinations Not to know that the act was wrong Legally wrong, not morally wrong R v Windle (1952) Confirmed in Johnson (2008) Difference in practice? Benign approach Mackay et al (2006)

Answer 4

Although Windle and Johnson set a strict legal rule (must not know act is legally wrong), in practice, judges and juries sometimes take a softer ("benign") view toward mentally ill defendants. Mackay et al (2006) is a research study. It found that even after Windle, courts sometimes bend the rules a little. For example: Juries might feel sympathy for a mentally ill defendant. Judges might allow broader evidence of mental disorder to help the defence. So even though legally the test is strict, in practice, mentally ill defendants sometimes still get the insanity verdict even when technically they knew it was illegal. “Benign approach” = sympathetic or lenient in real-world application. (They don't always apply the strict law as harshly as they could.)

Answer 5

A. D suffered loss of control B. Caused by external Factor C. Which was not his or her own fault ## Footnote (Bratty) Involuntary act + Done by muscles without any control of the mind + Act done by person not conscious of what he is doing

Answer 6

**R v Ghee** -> Where there is a complete **destruction** of voluntary control

Answer 7

No criminal responsibility Negates AR + MR Outright Acquittal

Answer 8

D 1. Suffered loss of control 2. Caused by an external factor 3. Which was not his/her own fault

Answer 9

****AG's Ref no2 1992** - Reduced or partial loss of control is not enough **McGhee** Disinhibition or irrationality does not count

Answer 10

External causes can involve, e.g. 1. Concussion 2. Hypoglycemia: Quick (1973) 3. Traumatic event: R v T (1990 - rape) 4. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Ritchie 5. Medically Prescribed Drugs: King 6. Confusional Arousal State: Lowe 7. Sneezing! Whoolley | *Bratty (1961)* – Cannot be internal

Answer 11

Which was not his or her fault - **Bailey (1983)** self-induced automatism depends on **foreseeability** | Where automatism is due to on'es prior fault, defence is not available

Answer 12

1. Voluntary Intoxication Lipman (1970) 2. Foreseen Incapacity Bailey (1983) Rigby (2013)

Answer 13

LC proposal on reforming insanity: * “not criminally responsible by reason of recognized medical condition” Must adduce expert evidence at time of alleged offence that D lacked capacity to: * Rationally form a judgement about relevant conduct or circs * Understand wrongfulness of what s/he is charged with having done * To control his/her physical acts in relation to the relevant conduct or crics as a result of a qualifying recognised medical condition.

Answer 14

Majewski [1977] Where the defendant does not have the requisite mens rea due to being voluntarily intoxicated, he is not guilty if the crime is one of specific intent, but is guilty if the crime is of basic intent. So either are offences but intoxication (basic) counts as recklessness ## Footnote - No recollection - Drugs followed by alchohol would have led to aggressive, paranoid behaviour, and that there afterwords would have been a loss of memory

Answer 15

**Specific Intent** -Murder - Theft - Robbery - Burglary with intent These crimes require a higher mental state, like planning or aiming at a particular result. **Basic Intent** - Assault - Battery - Manslaughter - Criminal Damage - These crimes only need recklessness or carelessness — you don't need a specific aim.

Answer 16

Hardie - Appeal allowed: self-administration of alcohol in itself is reckless and therefore fulfils the MR of basic intent - No evidence that it was known to the appellant that taking of valium in quanitty would be liable to render a person aggressive (they need to consider this!) Left to the jury to decided whether it is reckless to take it****

Answer 17

If D puts themselves in a risky situation (e.g., taking drugs knowing they might lose control), → D may be found guilty, even if the intoxication was partly involuntary. Applies especially to dangerous drugs.

Answer 18

**Intoxication: evidence of lack of MR** - BUT If someone intends to kill, despite the drunkness he is still liable -** Beard** - If you are too drunk to form MR does not count - **Sheehan and Moore **-> Too intoxicated to form MR

Answer 19

**Dutch courage rule:** A deliberately makes himself intoxicated in order to give himself sufficient courage to commit an offence = NO DEFENSE **Gallagher (1963):** | D killed his wife after getting severely intoxicated to do so.

Answer 20

Intoxication is irrelevant

Answer 21

**Getting intoxicated seen as recklessness: recall: Cunningham** - Law approaches it by saying you would have been aware of risk if you weren't drunk - Being drunk makes u inherently reckless hence because of VI, not being able to foresee consequences is no defence for BI - **Lipman [1970]:** appellant took LSD. He was hallucinating and believed he was being attacked by snakes. Whilst in this state he killed GF. Held: “no specific intent has to be proved to convict of manslaughter, and self-induced intoxication is accordingly no defence”

Answer 22

In practice for PQ: You must be sure that D, when D did the act, either: (1) realised that it might cause [some injury to some person] [destruction or damage to some property]; or (2) would have realised this had he not been [taking drugs] [drinking]

Answer 23

Where MR is not present (as compared to where there is one present)

Answer 24

**If D had MR then involuntary intoxication is irrelevant** D (paedophilic tendencies), drugged resulted in him assaulting underage boy. D held still liable because he invited the boy and drugged him | **Kingston (1995)**: drunken intent is still an intent:

Answer 25

* Negatives the required mens rea (both specific + basic intent) * Hardie - D not liable | Unexpected side effects from prescription drugs = involuntary intoxicati

Answer 26

*Was the intoxication voluntary?* **Yes** - Specific Intent = defence - Basic Intent = No defence ** No** Did the D have the necessary mens rea when he committed the offence? Yes = Guilty R v Kingston No = Not Guilty = R v Hardie

Answer 27

-** Just voluntarily drunk or high** ❌ No - **Mental illness + drunk** ✅ Maybe — if mental illness alone caused substantial impairment - **Alcoholism with brain damage / irresistible craving (no control)** ✅ Maybe - **Choosing to drink voluntarily while alcoholic but still in control **❌ No

Answer 28

**Voluntary intoxication alone is NOT enough for DR** **Fenton (1975):** Self-induced intoxication (just being drunk or high) does not by itself create an "abnormality of mental functioning."

Answer 29

**Combination of mental illness AND intoxication can support DR.** **Gittens (1984):** D had depression (mental illness) AND was VI. Would the mental illness alone have substantially impaired D's responsibility, even if D wasn't drunk? If the mental illness alone substantially impaired D, then DR is available. ✅ Murder conviction replaced with manslaughter.

Answer 30

VI alone usually ** X** diminished responsibility (Fenton rule) **BUT** if the person is a serious addict and their addiction itself has damaged their brain or caused an irresistible craving (so they can't control their drinking or drug use), then the addiction itself can count as an "abnormality of mental functioning" under DR.

Answer 31

- Involuntary Intoxication - Full acquittal possible - Talk about Voluntary Intoxication - specific intent crime reduced to a basic intent crime - Talk about DR

Answer 32

Coley and others (2013): Harris- H set fire to his own house whilst suffering from a psychotic episode brought on by heavy binge drinking, followed by a sudden cessation of drinking. He was charged with arson being reckless as to whether the lives of others would be endangered. Appeal allowed: while he may be “responsible for his own mental illness in the sense that it had been caused by drinking, this would be a significant extension of the principle in Majewsk”i.- bc here the cession caused the AOM Coley- Coley was 17 and a heavy cannabis user convicted of attempted murder. Coley claimed to have blacked out during this episode. Issue: whether his heavy ongoing cannabis use had given rise to a psychotic episode. Held: no Defence of automatism is not available to a defendant who has induced an acute state of involuntary behaviour by his own fault

Defences One Flashcards

(56 cards)