Criminal Incapacity Flashcards Preview

Criminal Law > Criminal Incapacity > Flashcards

Flashcards in Criminal Incapacity Deck (43)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Lipman

A

Voluntary Intoxication

D killed girlfriend while on LSD in the belief he was battling giant snakes
Held it would not make sense to take into account the facts that the D believed to exist as the court would with a normal defendant

2
Q

Sheehan and Moore

A

Voluntary Intoxication

A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent

Specific Intent crimes: Question jury should ask themselves is not about capacity but about whether D did have the intention at the time?

3
Q

Gallagher

A

Voluntary Intoxication

If the D gets drunk to give himself the dutch courage to do the crime, then he cannot rely on his self-induced drunkenness

4
Q

Specific intent crimes

A
Murder
Theft
Wounding/GBH with intent
Attempt
Burglary with intent
Robbery
5
Q

Majewski (What is basic intent)

A

Voluntary Intoxication: Basic Intent

D assaulted police officers under influence of alcohol and drugs, claimed he blacked out
HL: D cannot rely on intoxication in regards to crimes of basic intent, even if it prevents him forming the MR of a crime, and it produces a condition akin to automatism.

6
Q

Confirmed Basic Intent Crimes

A
Manslaughter
Rape
Sexual assault
Assault
Unlawful wounding
Basic Criminal damage
7
Q

Heard

A

Voluntary Intoxication: Test for specific/intent crimes

Crime is one of specific intent only where the mens rea requires regard to be had as to the consequences of the act
A crime of basic intent requires only proof of intention to do the AR

8
Q

Richardson

A

Voluntary Intoxication: specific/basic intent divide

If D would foresee risk but for intoxication= basic intent
Therefore D is taken to be aware of anything that he would have been aware of if sober
A more subjective and specific test- more focused on the defendant rather than the type of crime

9
Q

Kingston

A

Involuntary Intoxication

Normal rules of AR and MR apply

10
Q

Bailey

A

Voluntary Consumption with unexpected effects

In crimes of basic intent, D cannot be guilty without prior fault unless he appreciated the risk he may become aggressive so as to be a danger to others before he became intoxicated

11
Q

Hardie

A

Voluntary Consumption with unexpected effects

D took large dose of partner’s valium to calm him down.
Was not aware that in large doses valium’s sedative effect can be reversed
Under the influence of the valium he set fire to the flat with his girlfriend in it
Q to be put to the jury should be whether D appreciated the risk of aggression, and so therefore whether the taking of the drug itself was reckless?

12
Q

Bratty (Non-Insane Automatism)

A

Non-insane Automatism
General rule per Denning

‘An act which is done by the muscles without any control of the mind’
Actions may be more complex than a mere spasm or reflex.
D becomes an automatant as a consequence of voluntary intoxication then the rules on intoxication will apply
Viscount Kilmuir: If the cause of the automatism is a disease of the mind then the rules on insanity will apply.

D bears the evidential burden
Once this is raised the prosecution must disprove it

13
Q

Quick

A

Non-insane Automatism: ‘Impairment of Consciousness’

‘A malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect’

14
Q

Coley, Harris and McGhee: ‘Impairment of consciousness’

A

Non-insane Automatism: ‘Impairment of Consciousness’

you only need an impairment of consciousness- not total loss

15
Q

Broome v Perkins

A

Non-insane Automatism: Total Loss of Control

Diabetic experienced sudden, unexpected drop in blood pressure while driving, caused him to drive erratically, crash into another vehicle.
Only noticed damage to the car when he got home and had some sugar
Was held that there was still a degree of control during the journey home- had actually managed to make it home- therefore there was no defence of automatism

16
Q

A-G’s Referece (No 2 of 1992)

A

Non-insane Automatism: Total Loss of Control

D driving long journey on motorway, crashed and killed 2 people.
Medical evidence showed he had entered a condition called ‘driving without awareness’
CA held that there was still a degree of control, so this condition was not automatism

17
Q

Bingham

A

Non-insane Automatism: External Trigger

Diabetic accused of theft, said he was unaware of his actions because he had low blood sugar at the time
CA:
If the cause is an external factor e.g a sudden spike in insulin, then is non-insane
If the cause is an internal factor e.g failure to medicate the underlying condition then this can be classed as insanity

18
Q

Hennessey (Non-Insane Automatism)

A

External Trigger
Trigger must be external

D had diabetes and had not been medicating, but was able to point to other causes such as stress, marital problems leading to depression, that led him to stealing a car.
Was held that these problems were likely to reoccur, and so therefore were not extraordinary enough to be capable of producing automatism

19
Q

Non-Insane Automatism: D must not be to blame of external trigger, conflicting tests

A

Objective: Quick
Could the automatism have been reasonably foreseen?

Subjective: Bailey
Did D realise the risk?
There has not yet been tie breaker test that decides between the 2- so consider both!

20
Q

Sodeman

A

Insanity: Burden of proof

If raised by D, then D must prove this on a balance of probabilities

21
Q

Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964

A

Insanity:

S4, 4A, 5
Lay down procedure for where D cannot stand trial:
Jury will simply consider whether D did the act without a question of fault

22
Q

Pritchard

A

Insanity: Q of if D is fit to stand trial

Is D of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defence?
Can be comprehend the details of the evidence?

23
Q

Robertson

Podola

Walls

A

Insanity: Where D will be fit to be tried

D was able to understand trial but may make bad decisions or challenges

Condition only made it more difficult to conduct the case

Court drew attention to range of aids of communication provided by the court

24
Q

Sullivan (Insanity: Rationale for the special verdict)

A

Insanity: Rationale for the special verdict

Parallels the objective of the criminal system which is to protect society against the reoccurrence of dangerous conduct

25
Q

Daniel McNaughten

A

Insanity: Elements of the defence

Per Lord Tindall

  1. Defect of reason
  2. Underlying Disease of the mind
  3. D must not know the nature and quality of the act OR must not know that the act is wrong
26
Q

Clarke

A

Insanity: Defect of Reason

D charged with shoplifting as was absent minded and forgot to pay. This was not insanity.
D must loose the power to reason
Does not apply to a D who has the powers but fails to use them in full

27
Q

Bratty (Insanity)

A

Disease of the Mind:

Any mental disorder that has manifested itself in violence and is prone to reoccur

28
Q

Kemp

A

Insanity: Disease of the Mind

D struck wife with hammer for no apparent reason. Was found to have a physical condition of hardening of the arteries
This was held to be disease of the mind as it was capable of affecting the mind

29
Q

Burgess

A

Insanity: Disease of the mind

Can arise from a single occurrence

Violence caused by a sleepwalker
Held a disorder, with an internal trigger that was not prone to reoccur could still be a disease of the mind

30
Q

Hennessey (Insanity)

A

Problems with disease of the mind element

Lord Lane: Admitted the rules are out of date but their main function is to prevent automatism being used where there is a risk the behaviour could reoccur

31
Q

Windle

A

Insanity: D does not know the act is wrong

Does he know he is acting contrary to law?

Too harsh?
Rules out a number of people suffering serious mental illness that should not be responsible, but know that there is a rule against it

32
Q

Intoxication problem q structure

A

Problem Q structure:

  1. is the act voluntary?
  2. Is the crime charged one of specific or basic intent?
  3. If basic intent, is it a dangerous drug?
33
Q

Useful Law report for intoxication

A

Law Com. 314 Intoxication and Criminal Liability (2009)

34
Q

Law Comm: Voluntary Intoxication

A

In these cases the courts should go beyond the normal legal principle in order to find a balance with the rule of policy that reflects D’s fault

35
Q

Majewski:Rationales for specific and basic intent

A

Lord Russell: The act of self-intoxication can be seen as an act of recklessness as regards to possible consequences
Therefore a recklessness condition that would shave to be satisfied by a sober person foreseeing a specific risk of injury is already satisfied when that person is intoxicated.

Accepts that the law is illogical
It represents a more policy based compromise between complete disregard for the condition caused by intoxication and complete clearance of guilt based on it’s effect on the D’s actual state of mind at the time.

The purpose of the distinction is to ensure D will be convicted of something

36
Q

Majewski: Test for the specific/ basic intent divide

A

Working distinction is between offences requiring intention (specific intent) and those satisfied by recklessness (basic intent)

37
Q

3 rationales for the basic/ specific intent divide

A
  1. Prior Recklessness
  2. Would D foresee risk but for intoxication
  3. Policy Over Logic
38
Q

Mistakes and voluntary intoxication: Conflicting statutes

A

1.Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s76(5)
D who pleads self defence may not rely on any mistaken belief as to circumstances if this belief was attributable to voluntarily induced intoxication

  1. Criminal Damage Act 1971 s5(3)
    Mistaken belief in consent of an owner may excuse a D charged with a basic intent crime of criminal damage

Impossible to reconcile these

39
Q

Coley, Harris and McGhee

A

‘Total Loss of control’

Cannot have total loss of control where the D has fault in inducing the condition

40
Q

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991

A

Abolished Compulsory hospitalisation for insanity

41
Q

Sullivan (Insanity: Disease of the mind)

A
Mental illness does not have to be in the medical sense, but any condition which affects the mind and its faculties:
Reason
Memory
Understanding
Can be transient or permanent
42
Q

Ashworth (Rationale of the Insanity Defence)

A

A fundamental presumption of the criminal law is that the defendant is ‘normal’. Therefore where the defendant is not normal the system cannot apply to him.

43
Q

Law Comm (2013) reccomendations about insanity: ‘disease of the mind’

A

suggested a move to a defence of ‘not criminally responsible’ by reason of a recognised medical condition’ in order to address this issue in order to address fairer labelling