4838104
Description
Flashcards by katy stopforth, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by katy stopforth
about 8 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Definition of Automatism | 1) Involuntary act 2) due to an external factor |
| Apply: the act must be involuntary Automatism | Lord Denning - any act done by the muscles without any control by the mind Bratty v AG R v Charlson (man with tumor hit son with hammer and threw him in the river - his mid was not in control of his limbs) |
| Apply: external factor Automatism | Hill v Baxter (medical evidence must be provided) R v Smith (PMT cannot provide a defence of automatism) R v T (PTSD can provide a defence of automatism) R v Bilton (sleepwalking can provide a defence of automatism) R v Antiouk (PTSD can provide a defence of automatism) R v Quick (Diabetic who had taken insulin and not eaten attacked patient – insulin was external factor) |
| Apply: self-induced automatism Automatism | Specific Intent Crimes – can be a defence Basic Intent Crimes – consider the following: If D had been reckless in getting into a state of automatism – Self-induced automatism cannot be a defence R v Bailey (failing to eat after taking insulin) Where the self-induced automatic state is caused through drink or illegal drugs – Self-induced automatism cannot be a defence R v Majowski (voluntary intoxication is reckless) Where D does not know that his actions will lead to a self-induced automatic state, he had not been reckless – Self-induced automatism can be a defence R v Hardie (started a fire after taking prescribed valium) |
| Definition of Insanity | 1) D was labouring under a defect of reason 2) which was caused by a disease of the mind 3a) so that D did not know the quality of his act 3b) or that what he was doing was legally wrong. |
| Case which set out the definition of Insanity | M'Naghtens Case 1843 |
| Apply: Defect of Reason Insanity | R v Clarke (completely unable to reason/form rational judgements) |
| Apply: Disease of the Mind Insanity | It may not need to be a disease of the brain itself, but covers any physical disease which affects the operation of the mind. R v Kemp (arteriosclerosis can be a disease of the mind – can damage brain cells) R v Sullivan (Epilepsy is insanity) Hennessey (Diabetes can be an internal factor if the hyperglycaemic state was cause by the diabetes itself) Other Points: an irresistible impulse is not enough for insanity (R v Byrne) insanity does not cover absent mindedness (R v Clarke) |
| Apply: so that D did not know the quality of his act or that what he was doing was legally wrong. Insanity | R v Codere (cut wife’s throat thinking it was a loaf of bread – he did not know the nature and quality of his act) R v Windle (the act was wrong is to mean wrong in the eyes of the law) |
| Voluntary Intoxication Intoxication | A person who has chosen to become intoxicated. Specific Intent Crimes DPP v Beard (voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for specific intent crimes) R v Lipman (acquitted of murder and charged with manslaughter – LSD trip) R v Kingston (drugged intent is still intent – sexually assaulted 15y/o when drugged) AG NI v Gallagher (intoxication for Dutch courage can be convicted on the basis of a continuing act) Basic Intent Crimes R v Majewski (the jury must consider is the D was reckless with basic intent crimes) R v Lipman (if D knew there was a risk of him acting a certain way, he is being reckless) |
| Involuntary Intoxication Intoxication | A person who becomes intoxicated without his knowledge (e.g. being spiked) or by taking drugs for proper medical purposes. Basic and Specific Intent Crimes Did the defendant have the necessary mens rea? Yes – Guilty (R v Kingston) No (Basic Intent) – Not Guilty (R v Hardie) No (Specific Intent) – Not Guilty (not been reckless) Other Points: - if D knows he is taking drink/drugs, he cannot rely on the fact that they are more powerful than expected and may lose his defence is he disregards medical evidence. - R v Kingston (drugged intent is still intent – sexually assaulted 15 y/o when drugged) |
| Circumstances where it is lawful to use force Lawful Force | “A person may use such force as reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in the defence of himself or another.” to defence oneself or others to make a lawful arrest to prevent crime to protect property to evict a trespasser who refuses to leave by a parent to discipline a child |
| Defendants Conduct Lawful Force | R v Bird (pre-emptive strikes are allowed - the defendant need not try to run away before using force) |
| Subjective Element Lawful Force | D may use force to defend himself, or another in the circumstances he believes them to be in R v Williams (Gladstone) (honest mistake is sufficient – confirmed in s76 (3) Criminal Justice and immigration Act 2008) Other Points: R v Bird (Lord Lane – “if D is proved to have been attacking or retaliating or revenging himself, then he was not acting in self defence”) |
| Objective Element Lawful Force | the force must be reasonable and necessary Hatton (if a mistake as to the amount of force used was induced by intoxication, self defence cannot be relied upon) Lipman (could not plead self-defence as he was intoxicated) |
| Excessive Force Lawful Force | R v Clegg (Ds fourth shot was when V was escaping and therefore not lawful) R v Martin (Ds shot at intruders as they ran away was unlawful) |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.