Capacity

Liability:

• AR + MR - Defences

• But D must have sufficient capacity to be held responsible

• Age of criminal responsibility: 10

Fitness to plead:

Trial process issue, fairness of putting someone on trial who has little understanding

Insanity:

NGRI: not guilty by reason of insanity

McNaughton 1843:

• Suffering from delusion that tories in the city “want to kill him”

• Decided he was going to kill tory prime minister, and his secretary came out of his office

• D mistook him for PM and shot him

• Confirmed he was insane and was equitted

• Rules were made from this case: Burden is on you to prove insanity

To establish insanity:

Must be proved that at the time of committing the act, D was:

• Labouring under a defect of reason

• From a disease of the mind

• So as not to know either the nature and quality of act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong

In McNaughten:

• He knew what he was doing & that it was wrong

• He would not be considered insane in this time

Keal 2022:

• Blamed demonic influences that had been telling him to murder

• Defence wanted to plead insanity, long history of sever mental disorder

• Convicted at trial

• Lord Burnett: “defence of insanity is not available to a defendant who, although he knew what he was doing was wrong, he believed that he had no choice but to commit the act'“

Proposed law commission test 2013:

Must be evidence from at least 2 experts that D wholly lacked capacity to:

• Rationally form a judgement about the relevant conduct

• Understand the wrongfulness of what they are charged with having done, or

• Control his or her physical acts in relation to the relevant conduct/circumstances

Sullivan 1984:

• D attacks man during epileptic fit

• D seeks acquittal on basis of no voluntary act

• Allowed by NGRI, absence of voluntariness due to mental disorder

• Authority for disease of the mind, must arise internally

Insanity includes:

• Epilepsy (sullivan)

• Diabetes (hennesy)

• Sleepwalking (burgess)

• Effects of a tumor (kemp)

Law commission suggests:

Abolish insanity, replace with new defence based on lack of capacity ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a recognised mental condition’

Automatism:

No criminal responsibility

R v T 1990:

• T took part in a robbery

• Used automatism as suffering from PTSD from rape

• Held, rape constituted an external factor so non insane automatism

External cause:

Non insane automatism; acquittal

Internal cause:

Insane automatism; usually admitted to a facility

Quick 1973:

Hypoglycemia: non insane automatism, insulin as external cause

Hennessy 1989:

Hyperglycemia: insane automatism, diabetes as internal cause

Areas for reform:

• Get rid of internal/external factors

• What should matter is whether D lacked capacity due to recognised mental condition

Intoxication:

• Where harm done is more significant than fault element: voluntary intox not admitted to deny fault elemet

• Where fault element plays more pivotal role: intox admissible as evidence of lack of fault

R v Sheehan & Moore 1975:

• Involved in killing V by setting him alight

• Convicted of murder

• S claimed poured petrol to scare him and didn’t intend to kill V or understand consequences to drunkness

  • Did he have intent to kill when intoxicated? That is the Q to ask jury

Specific intent crimes:

• Murder

• Attempted murder

• Wounding with intent to GBH

• Theft

• Fraud

• Robbery

• Burglary

Basic intent crimes:

• Manslaughter

• Assault

• ABH

• S.20 wounding

• Sexual offences

• Criminal damage

• Recklessness/negligence= basic

O’connor 1991:

• Drinking heavily, headbutted V 3x

• D formed mistaken belief he was actin in self defence, plea failed

• Where D is labouring under mistaken belief, he cannot rely on belief where it was induced by voluntary intox

Automatism definition:

• Lord denning: “An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind… or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing:

• Bratty v A-G for N Ireland 1963

Voluntary intoxication:

• Never a defence, can only be shown in a specific intent crime that they lacked MR

• If basic intent crime, intox itself is taken as evidence they had MR

Majewski 1977:

If a person drinks/takes drugs, they realise they might as a result, behave in a way they wouldn’t choose to normally so in taking the drug they are reckless and taking a risk that they may commit a crime, law can deem them reckless

Mistakes:

• Those which prevent D from forming MR negate liability

• E.g. shooting a bird and accidentally shoot a person stood near it