Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
R v Kingston 1994
|
D. commited acts of indecency-he claimed-drugged. Judge-can only b acquitted if drugs caused lack of mens rea at the time of the crime. DPP appealed.- No defence if had mens rea-even if involuntary intoxicated. If inv.intox. caused lack of MR-defence to any crime.
|
|
|
Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963
|
D-aggressive psychopath-mental disorder which cld b brought on by alcohol. Killed his wife-with intent + drunk (possibly to hv courage).Pleaded insanity+intox. Held: if a person forms MR whilst sane+sober and then gets intox. to commit the crime-no defence.
|
|
|
DPP v Majewski 1977
|
D. attacked a number of people bt claimed lack of MR due 2 self-induced intox. through drink+drugs. Appealed-dismissed. Self-induced intox. - no defence 2 a crime of basic intent
|
|
|
R v Caldwell 1982
|
D set fire2 a hotel -arson. Caimed-was too drunk. Held: Self-induced intox. is relevant 2 a charge of intentional crim.dam. bt not where the charge includes recklessness. The risk wld hv bn obvious 2 him if he was sober
|
|
|
Jaggard v Dickinson 1981
|
D (intox-ted) mistook a house for tht of her friend/broke window-charged with crim.dam.Pleaded a belief under s5(2)) tht wld hv consent for the damage. Appeal allowed-s5(2)) only requires an honest belief and so even one induced by intox. cld b relied on.
|
|
|
Automatism
|
act is done by D's muscles bt they r nt, at the time, under the control of D's mind. (concussion, hypoglycemic come or other blackouts)
|
|
|
Bratty v AG for NI 1963
|
D convicted of murder-claimed-psychomotor epilepsy. Appeal dismissed-Lord Denning-"major mental diseases...such as schizophrenia... clearly diseases of the mind"+disorders falling within definition given in the key principle above"????? House of Lords - doubted in Quick, Burgess - even w/o danger of reoccurence.????
|
|
|
R v Quick and Paddison 1973
|
Diabetic nurse assaulted patient-hypoglycaemic lapse of consciousness/caused/alcohol/failing 2 eat after taking insulin. Pleaded guilty-judge-only defence-insanity. Appeal allowed:any malfunction of mind-caused by external factors-didn't amount 2 insanity. Appropriate defence-automatism
|
|
|
R v Sullivan 1984
|
"Not knowing the nature and quality of an act" means that "he did not know what he was doing"
|
|
|
R v Bailey 1983
|
D-convicted of wounding with intent. Claimed-automatism-hypoglycaemia. Held: Self-induced automatism other than tht arising from intox. from alcohol or drugs, might, in sm cases, form a defence to crimes of basic intent.
|
