Denial

Intoxication

D claims lack of MR due to being intoxicated.

Mens Rea (MR)

The mental element of a crime; can be denied due to intoxication.

R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353

Core principle: an intoxicated MR is still a valid MR.

Prior Fault

Where D intoxicated themselves, their intoxication can inculpate them further.

Voluntary Intoxication

D must be responsible for being in the intoxicated state.

Basic Intent Offence

Offences where intoxication can replace the absent MR; akin to negligence-type liability.

Specific Intent Offence

Offences where the question is simply whether D had MR or not.

DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443

'Basic intent' roughly means an offence that can be satisfied by recklessness.

Dangerous Substance (Intoxication Context)

Commonly known to cause unpredictability and/or aggression when taken.

R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] 1 Cr App R 392

It must be the intoxication itself that is the reason D lacks MR.

Involuntary Intoxication

If involuntary intoxication results in lack of MR, there is no liability.

Dutch Courage

Getting intoxicated in order to commit a specific intent crime.

Automatism

A state where a person, though capable of action, is not conscious of what they are doing. It means unconscious involuntary action.

Automatism Plea Requirements

Complete loss of voluntary control, caused by an external factor, where the defendant was not at fault in losing capacity.

Voluntariness in Automatism

Any degree of voluntariness means automatism will not be satisfied, as erratic or irrational voluntariness is still voluntariness.

Non-Voluntary Conduct

Non-voluntary conduct is that which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion.

Automatism Applied Narrowly in Driving Cases

Driving while hypoglycaemic (insulin) and too much lorry driving.

R v Coley [2013]

Conduct was still voluntary, albeit irrational, and thus not automatic.

Moral Involuntariness

Impulse, provocation, addiction, etc., are not enough to prove automatism.

Automatism: Prior Fault

If the defendant's conduct at T1 (time 1) is blameworthy, this 'prior fault' can substitute for the missing fault element(s) at T2 (time 2).

Automatism: Prior Fault Elements

D must have done the AR elements in a state of automatism, D’s automatism must have stemmed from earlier blameworthy conduct, and D’s offence must be one of ‘basic intent’.

Subjective Foresight

The defendant must foresee the risk of involuntariness (R v Bailey)

Objective Foresight

The defendant should foresee the risk of involuntariness (R v Quick).

Prior Fault and Specific Intent

Prior fault cannot substitute for fault in specific intent offenses.

Insanity in Criminal Law

A purely legal concept relying on an internal cause of a lack of responsibility.

Ways to Plead Insanity

D does AR and forms the corresponding MR, but claims they were 'insane' at the time; OR, D does AR but lacks the MR due to 'insanity'.

NGRI Verdict: Three Options

Hospital order, supervision order, absolute discharge.

Elements of Insanity

D must suffer from a disease of the mind, this must have caused a defect of reason, which must in turn have caused a lack of responsibility.

Disease of the Mind

An internally caused lack of MR/voluntariness. A legal concept, not a medical one.

Defect of Reason

There must be a defect of reason i.e. D not being able to think or reason properly.

D does not know the nature and quality of their act

Relates to the physical aspects of D’s conduct, e.g. cutting V’s throat believing they are cutting a loaf of bread.

D does not know what they are doing is wrong

Means ‘legally’ wrong, not morally wrong.