Mental Capacity Defences

Insanity

insanity is a common law defence, it leads to a special verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity”. It was defined in (M’Naghten)

“D must prove that at the time of committing the act, he was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the nautre and quality of the act or if he did, He didn’t know what he was doing was wrong”

Clark (Defect of reason)

D claimed she did not realise she had put items from a supermarket whilst being absent-minded.

The defence of insanity applied to people deprived of their ability to reason, not those who just failed to use reasoning

Kemp (Disease of the mind)

D had a physical disease that affect blood supply to the brain, causing unconsciousness.

A disease of the mind can include a physical disease that affected the mind. D was not guilty. There has to be an internal factor, else its treated as automatism

Sullivan

D suffered from epilepsy, and attacked an 80 year old during a fit. Epilepsy is treated as a disease of the mind

Hennessy

D suffered from diabetes. D failed to take insulin and took a car without consent. Diabetes is treated as a disease of the mind

Burgess

D suffered from a sleep disorder and tried to strangle his girlfriend in his sleep. D had a disease of the mind as the sleep disorder was internal

Quick

D was a nurse who had diabetes, he took insulin but failed to eat. this was not an internal factor but an external one i.e the drug insulin, therefore no defence of insanity, but automatism was available

Coley

D had a bad experience on cannabis. D was guilty as his mental disorder had resulted from an external act of voluntary intoxication

Oye (Not knowing nature or quality)

D had a psychotic episode and attacked a policewoman believing she was a demon. D did not know what she was doing and was not guilty

Windle (Not knowing it was wrong)

D’s wife spoke of suicide and D gave her 100 aspirin tablets and she died, and said they’d hang him for this. Even though D thought he was morally justified, he knew his actions were legally wrong so he could not please insanity.

Johnson

D was a paranoid Schizophrenic, who believed V molested his siter. Doctors agreed that D knew the nature and quality and that his acts were wrong. Insanity was not available

Special Verdict

In murder cases there is an automatic result of indefinite committal to a mental hospital. otherwise there are following order

• A hospital order

• A supervision order

• An absolute discharge

Automatism

Common law defence defined in Bratty

• An act done by the muscles without any control of the mind

• Or, an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing

A-G’s Ref No.2 1992 (involuntary act)

D was driving a lorry and crashed, claiming he was driving without awareness. There must be a “total destruction of voluntary control”, reduced control is not enough

Hill v Baxter (External cause)

“A person should not be made liable at the criminal law who, through no fault of his own, becomes unconscious when driving as the car has been put temporarily out of his control owing to his being attacked by a swarm of bees”

R v T

D was raped, and 3 days later was involved in a robbery. Exceptional stress from a traumatic event could be “an external factor”. judge put it to a jury who did not believe her story

Self induced automatism

Self induced means that D knows his conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state, knowing it will cause a lack of consciousness

Bailey

D was diabetic who attacked V after taking insulin and failing to eat. Self induced automatism is a defence to specific intent crimes but not basic intent

Coley and Hardie

• D cannot use automatism if they voluntarily took an intoxicating substance

• (Hardie) D took Valium and it had an unexpected effect, D had not been reckless and should have been able to raise a defence

Insane automatism

This is treated under the M’Naghten rules. (Hennessy’s) involuntary act was triggered by an internal factor, whereas (Quick’s) was the effect of insulin and not eating

Intoxication

Common law defence, that depends on whether:

• the intoxication is voluntary or involuntary

• the offence charged is one of specific intent (intention must be proved) or basic intent (recklesness is enough)

Voluntary Intoxication

This is where D has chosen to take an intoxicating substance. it is only a defence to specific intent offences provided D is so intoxicated they have not formed the mens rea

Sheehan and Moore

Ds threw petrol over a homeless man and set fire to him. They were too drunk to have formed an intent to kill. Ds did not have the mens rea for murder but were guilty of manslaughter as that is basic intent

Gallagher

D decided to kill his wife and drank a lot of whiskey to gain the courage. If D has the MR then he is guilty even if he would not have committed the offence sober. A drunken intent is still an intent

Majewski

D went on a drink and drug binge and then assaulted 3 people. D was reckless when he got drunk which was enough to replace the MR of the offence of S.47

Allen

D drank homemade wine which had a much greater effect than expected. The intoxication was still voluntary even though He had not realised the strenght of it.

Involuntary intoxication

Where d does not know they were taking an intoxicating substance. (Hardie) was involuntary intoxication as he was not reckless as to intoxication. This is a defence to basic intent crimes as well

Kingston

D’s coffee was drugged by men intending to blackmail him. He was then invited to abuse a 15 year old boy. Even though D’s drink was spiked he had no defence as he formed the necessary intent when the offence was committted

Lipman (Mistake and intoxication)

D took Lsd and suffocated his girlfriend to death believing she was a snake. D did not have the mens rea for murder but was reckless in voluntarily taking the drug, therefore guilty of manslaughter

Taj

D eventually had a psychosis and nearly killed a man thinking he was trying to detonate bomb. The defence failed as a mistake as to the need of self-defence can never lead to a defence of Intoxication.

Evaluation of intoxication- social paternalism

A person should have personal autonomy but this must be balanced against what is good for society. similarly the law needs to protect innocents, so in (kingston) even though D was not voluntarily intoxicated and blackmailed into sexual assault, there was a need to defend the 15 year old victim, despite unfairness on the defendant

Ideas for reform of intoxication

• Keep the voluntary/ involuntary split

• Abolish the specific and basic intent distinction and provide integral fault offences

• In relation to involuntary intoxication, the commission confirmed (kingston) and suggested a list of situations where D should be regarded as involuntarily intoxicated

• In some countries a separate offence of dangerous intoxication can be charged but this was rejected as its too braod in sentencing