Defences II - Lecture 14 PDF

Preview

Summary

Intoxication: Intoxication does not provide a defence as such but is relevant as to whether or not the defendant has the required MR for the offence. Intoxication can be relevant to criminal liability in two ways: A. It can result in Ds lacking the MR of an offence B. It can result in Ds making a mi...

Description

Defences II 2013 Intoxication: Intoxication does not provide a defence as such but is relevant as to whether or not the defendant has the required MR for the offence. Intoxication can be relevant to criminal liability in two ways: A. It can result in Ds lacking the MR of an offence B. It can result in Ds making a mistake which may allow them to rely on a defence -

Is the substance ‘dangerous’ or ‘non-dangerous’? Is the intoxication ‘voluntary’ or ‘involuntary’? If voluntary, is the crime charged ‘specific’ or ‘basic’?

R v Hardie [1985] – dangerous = if there is common knowledge that the substance is liable to make the person aggressive or to do a dangerous or unpredictable thing (IE. Alcohol) Non – dangerous = if there is no such common knowledge. IE. The substance is arguably merely soporific or a sedative. (IE. Valium) Voluntary Intoxication: The law does not and never has accepted voluntary intoxication as a defence to criminal liability with the following exception. If D was voluntary intoxicated with alcohol or a dangerous drug and is charged with a specific intent crime and D did not form MR then D is not guilty of the specific intent crime (but liability may be reduced). If D was voluntary intoxicated with alcohol or a dangerous drug and D is charged with a basic intent crime then the jury must ask, would D have formed MR is sober? If no, D is not guilty. If yes, D is guilty and the prosecution does not have to prove that D did in fact form the MR. (a) Voluntary intoxication and specific intent offences: If D is so intoxicated that he has not formed the MR then he has a defence. See: Sheehan and Moore [1975]. If D does not form the MR or a specific intent offence: Where D is voluntarily intoxicated and does not form the MR or a specific intent crime, D cannot be convicted of that crime, but if there is a basic intent alternative offence, he will be convicted of the lesser crime. So if D is charged with murder and did not form MR due to his intoxication, he will be convicted of manslaughter. See: R v Lipman [1970].

1

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Defences II 2013 AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] – If D drinks or takes drugs in order to commit a specific intent offence (so called Dutch courage), as a matter of policy the defence fails and there is no reduction in liability to a basic intent crime. (b) Voluntary intoxication and basic intent offences: Intoxication is no defence to an offence of basic intent because voluntary intoxication is considered a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary MR. See: Majewski [1977] and Richardson and Irwin [1999]. Involuntary Intoxication: This covers situations where: - The D’s drink had been laced - Where prescribed drugs have an unexpected effect of making the defendant intoxicated The test is did the D have the necessary MR when he committed the offence? If so, involuntary intoxication will provide no defence. If it negates the MR it will provide a full defence to any type of offence. See: Kingston [1994] and Hardie [1984]. Allen [1988] – The distinction between specific and basic intent is not relevant where D is involuntarily intoxicated. If D knows he is drinking or taking drugs, but the effect of them is more than he realised, he is voluntarily intoxicated. Is prescription medication ‘dangerous’? The answer is no. The Bailey [1983] rules apply… Intoxicated Mistakes: If D makes a mistake when he is voluntarily intoxicated we need to establish the nature of the mistake to see if D has a defence. It is a matter of public policy that the availability of defences is limited where D is drunk. Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] – If D’s mistake relates to some element of a statutory provision which is phrased in such a way as to include D’s mistake, he may be lucky enough to escape liability. Insanity: Insanity refers to the legal defence and not a description of a medical condition. The law on insanity was laid down by the M’Naghten Rules [1843]. For the defence of insanity to be established the D must prove that at the time of committing the act:

2

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Defences II 2013 ‘…he was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing was wrong…’ 1. There must be a disease of the mind 2. This must cause a defect of reason 3. This must cause the D not to know the nature and quality of his acts or not to know what he is doing is wrong Sentencing and Burden of Proof: Where a D is found to be insane the verdict is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. The burden of proving insanity is on the defence who must prove it on the balance of probabilities. 1. Defect of reason: This means that the D’s powers of reasoning must be impaired and is more than absent mindedness or confusion. See: Clarke [1972]. 2. Caused by a disease of the mind: This is a legal term not a medical one. The disease can be a mental or a physical disease which affects the mind rather than a disease that brought about by an external factor such as drugs. It does not have to be a permanent state. It must be an internal factor. See: Kemp [1956], Sullivan [1983], and Bratty [1963]. 3. Not knowing the nature and quality of the act/ not knowing that it is wrong: The D must prove one of the following: - He did not know what he was doing - He did not appreciate the consequences of his act - He did not appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting See: Windle [1952] Automatism: This is a recognised defence to all crimes. It refers to situations where the D’s actions are (i) involuntary and (ii) due to an external factor. Rationale for the defence: The D in such a situation is not responsible for the consequences of his or her actions. The D does not deserve to be punished. So this is a defence because the AR done by the D is not voluntary and the D does not have the necessary MR.

1. Involuntary act:

3

Criminal Law – Year 2!

Defences II 2013 An involuntary act is where the D’s mind is not controlling his limbs. There must be a total lack of awareness. If the D is in partial control automatism will not apply. See: Hill v Baxter [1958] and Broome v Perkins [1987]. 2. An external factor: The cause of the automatism must be an external factor and it must not be self-induced. Examples of external causes include:  A blow to the head (concussion)  An attack by a swarm of bees  Sneezing  Hypnotism  Effect of a prescribed drug  Exceptional stress – R v T [1990] Self-induced Automatism: Where the D knows that his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state. If the offence charged is one of basic intent then:  Self-induced automatism cannot be a defence as the D has been reckless in getting into a state of automatism  Where the state is caused through drink or illegal drugs the D cannot use the defence becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct  If the D does not know that his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state he has not been reckless and can use the defence If the offence charged is one of specific intent then:  Self-induced automatism can be a defence because the D lacks the required MR.  However, the D can be charged with a lesser offence which requires only recklessness See: Hardie [1984].

4

Criminal Law – Year 2!...