Denial of Offences

Insanity

Defendant denies mental capacity at the time of the offence

Logic of Insanity pleas

- D has a mental illness so serious that it impairs their ability to form the mens rea cannot be held criminally responsible

- D's mental condition is such that prevents him or her from being aware the conduct is wrong

DPP v Harper 1997

held that insanity cannot apply to strict liability cases only mens rea

Loake v CPS 2017

Facts: D was convicted of harassment for sending multiple letters to her ex and pleaded insanity. The prosecution argued that this plea must fail as it is a case of strict liability

Decision: insanity could be used because it is wider than just a denial of mens rea it is a mechanism for protecting the mentally ill

R v M'Naughten 1843

Facts: D attempted to shoot someone but accidentally shot V, he was pleaded insanity

Decision: D was found not to be guilty for reason of insanity

M'Naughten Rules

A defence plea of insanity involves:

1. A disease of the mind

2. A defect of reason

Has to be so substantial that the accused did not know what he or she was doing

What is the outcome of a successful plea of insanity

'not guilty by reason of insanity' - institutionalised rather than set free

Presumption of sanity

we presume that everyone is sane as a matter of practicality - THIS MEANS DEFENCE BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF

What is a disease of mind

any disease of the body affecting the mind

Examples of diseases of mind

1. psychomotor epilepsey

2. sleepwalking

3. Premenstrual syndrome (Smith 1982)

4. Diabetes

R v Kemp 1957

Facts: D had a hardening of arteries causing a loss of consciousness. He attacked his wife without motive

Decision: any disease of the body that effects the mind is enough for insanity

R v Sullivan 1984

epilepsy was a disease of mind

Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland 1963

Facts: D strangled an 18 year old girl to death and claimed a "blackness" came over him

Decision: psychomotor epilepsy is a disease of the mind

R v Burgess 1991

Facts: D hit V on the head with a video recorder while sleep walking after she rejected him

Decision: sleepwalking is a defence of insanity as it arose from an internal cause even if psychiatrists do not recognise sleep walking as insanity

R v Hennessy 1989

Facts: D was charged with taking a vehicle without the owner's consent and driving without a licence. He had not taken his insulin and his pancreas was malfunctioning affecting his brain

Decision: not taking insulin would be insanity

R v Quick 1973

Facts: D had taken an insulin injection and not eaten, he assaulted a nurse and the trial judge held this was a plea of insanity

Decision: this was sane automatism as the malfunctioning of the mind was caused by something external (insulin injection)

types of diabetes

Hyperglycaemia = insanity

hypoglycaemia = sane automatism

difference between insanity and sane automatism

insanity is caused by an internal factor and sane automatism is external

R v Clarke 1972

Facts: D shoplifted and used the excuse of absent-mindedness due to depression. The trial judge held this would be insanity

Decision: on the facts, there was no defect of reason

absent mindedness

Not all cases of absent-mindedness are insanity

You have to not be aware of the nature and the quality of your act

Examples:

D strangles V thinking he is opening a jar

R v Windle 1952

Facts: D was suffering from depression due to living with his insane wife and killed her with an overdose. When questioned by the police, he said "I suppose they will hang me for this"

Decision: D knew what he was doing was legally wrong so there cannot be a plea of insanity

R v Keal 2022

Facts: D was charged with attempted murder of his family after he attacked them with weapons, while attacking them he was apologising

Decision: D must prove that either he did not know the nature and quality of his acts or that he did not know that his act was both unlawful and morally wrong

R v Coley 2013

held that insanity requires a disease of the mind and a defect of reason arising from internal causes. Voluntary intoxication alone cannot constitute insanity.

San automatism

External causes of D lacking mental capacity

what is the result of a successful plea of sane automatism

acquittal

Viscount Kilmuir

held that Automatism is "an action without any knowledge of acting, or action with no consciousness of doing what was being done."

Hill v Baxter

Facts: D had a blackout and ran his van through a stop sign, crashing into another car

Decision: if there is a temporary loss of consciousness from an accident, it is reasonable to say it will not be repeated and that it is safe to let a man go free

Elements of automatism

1. Complete loss of voluntary control

2. Caused by an external factor

3. Not self-induced

Burden of proof in sane automatism

it is up to the defence to bring it up and the prosecution have the burden of disproving it

AG's Reference No.2 1993

Facts: D was driving without awareness causing death by reckless driving

Decision: automatism required a total destruction of voluntary control, impaired or reduced control was not enough. D only had impaired control as he could still steer the vehicle and react to stimuli on the road

R v McGhee 2013

held that automatism requires wholly involuntary action

R v T 1990

Facts: D was charged with robbery and ABH while in a dissociative manner due to the PTSD of being raped 3 days prior

Decison: rape was an external factor and this would be a case of sane automatism. However, on the facts it was not

R v Rabey 1978

In determining whether a particular mental condition is a disease of the mind... Ordinary stresses of life (e.g being rejected by a lover) do not constitute external causes.

R v Bailey 1983

held that the courts must consider whether individuals know/can foresee that by taking excess drugs or alcohol they can become unpredictable — if they do know this, then it would be self-induced and the defendant would be at fault at bringing about their automatism

R v Hardie 1984

Facts: D's relationship breaks down and he takes some Valium before setting his flat on fire. The trial judge ruled since the drug well self administered there was no defence

Decision: if the drug taken was not known to cause aggression, D cannot be liable for bringing about his own automatism

Involuntary intoxication

D is acquitted if the intoxication meant that he lacked mens rea

voluntary intoxication

D is guilty if the drug is one commonly known to create aggression

specific intent crimes

if D is intoxicated, he is entitled to acquittal if he lacked mens rea

basic intent crimes

D is convicted by his prior fault in reducing his capacity even if he lacks mens rea at the time of the offence

R v Sheehan and Moore 1975

Facts: Ds were drunk and set fire to V, killing him. They claimed to be so drunk that they had no recollection of the incident

Decision: a drunken intent was still an intent if the defendants were so drunk they had no intent to kill or cause serious harm, they could not be guilty of murder

Sheehan direction

a drunken intent is still an intent but if D was so intoxicated that they were incapable of forming the necessary intent, they cannot be guilty of specific intent offences like murder

R v Campaneu 2020

The Sheehan direction should only be used if

1. D claims to not have formed the mens rea because he was intoxicated

2. there is evidence that D has consumed such a high quantity of substances that he may not have formed that state of mind

R v Aidad 2021

Even where D does not positively assert that he was too intoxicated to form the requisite mens rea, if there is sufficient evidence of consumption of alcohol/drugs to make it a potential issue as regards intent, then, regardless of the nature of the defence, the judge should give the jury a Sheehan direction.

R v Kingston 1995

Facts: D was a pedo. P invites a 15 year old to his house and drugs them both to fil, D indecently assaulting V

Decision: while D was morally blameless for his actions, he still had the mens rea as a drunken intent was still an intent as was guilty

dutch courage

specifically becoming intoxicated to have the courage to commit the crime - form the intent before they get drunk

AG Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963

Facts: D decided to kill his wife and then got drunk and killed her

Decision: intoxication could not be a defence here as it was a case of dutch courage

R v Harris 2013

Facts: D was on a weekend binge which caused his to have a psychotic break and he tried to set fire to his o=house, At the time of the offence he was sober

Decision: if intoxication causes a psychiatric break and you commit a crime while sober, this is a plea of insanity, not intoxication.

R v Taj 2018

Facts: D had been taking drugs for days and was sober at the time of the offence, He attacked V as he was wearing islamic attire and he thought he was a terrorist

Decision: If a defendant's mistaken belief stems from a mental state caused by earlier voluntary intoxication, they cannot rely on self-defence — even if they are sober during the incident.

R v Allen 1988

Knowingly taking a drug but which was of higher potency than you realised is not involuntary intoxication

DPP v Majewski 1977

Facts: D had been drinking and taking drugs and became violent towards police officers. He claimed he knew nothing about the incident

Decision: voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent (such as assault or criminal damage). This is because getting drunk or high voluntarily is seen as a reckless course of conduct, which is enough to satisfy the mental element of basic intent offences.

difference between specific and basic intent crimes

if the main mens rea for the offence is intention, it is a specific intent offence, if the main mens rea is recklessness then it is a basic intent offence

R v Heard 2007

Facts: D was drunk and got arrested, he then rubbed his penis of the thigh of an officer and was charged with sexual assault

Decision: sexual assault is a crime of basic intent as even though it involves intentional touching, there is no specific intent to achieve a further consequence

test: Specific intent crimes are ones where there is an ulterior intent

criticisms for the test in Heard

murder has no ulterior intention but is a specific intent crime - the test is too narrow and too wide

IN A PROBLEM QUESTION APPLY MAJEWSKI NOT HEARD

Examples of basic intent offences

- Sexual offences

- criminal damage

- Assault, Battery, ABH s20 GBH

- Manslaughter

Examples of specific intent offences

- s18 GBH

- murder

- theft

- complicity

R v Lipman 1970

Facts: D had taken LSD with his girlfriend and was hallucinating. He believed he was being attacked by snakes when in reality he was strangling her to death

Decision: D voluntarily intoxicated himself with a drug commonly known to be dangerous and committed a basic intent crime, therefore he was guilty.

Richardson and Irwin 1990

Facts: D dropped V off a balcony while heavily intoxicated, he argued even sober he would have not foreseen the risk of injury

Decision: a subjective test should be applied whether D himself would have foreseen the risk of injury

Law Commission 1993 Proposal

Get rid of the distinction between basic and specific intent — if there is no mens rea, then D is not guilty of the specific offence but is charged with criminal intoxication instead

Child, "Drink, Drugs and Law Reform: A Review of Law Commission Report No. 314", [2009]

the distinction between specific and basic intent offences has led to "confusion and inconsistency" in legal applications

Ch 5.1 of the Law Commission (2013), 'Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism - A Discussion Paper'

"We provisionally propose that the current defences of insanity and automatism should be replaced by a single defence of 'not criminally responsible by reason of recognised medical condition'." This defence would apply whenever D was suffering from a "recognised medical condition" that impaired their ability to (a) understand the nature of their conduct; (b) form a rational judgment; or (c) exercise self-control.

R D Mackay, "Righting the wrong? - some observations on the second limb of the M'Naghten Rules" [2009] Crim LR 80.

the word "wrong" is not explained whether it means legally or morally wrong causing inconsistencies in judicial interpretations - some defendants cannot distinguish moral wrongness