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;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Insanity M'naughten rules |
M' Naghten (1843) |
Defendant tried to assassinate the Prime Minister but instead killed the victim, a civil servant. Defendant suffered from extreme paranoia and thought the government was persecuting him. Defendant was found not guilty of murder due to his mental state. Defendant was subsequently committed to a hospital, however, this was not as a result of the verdict. There was public outcry that there was no law to deal with such situations and lead to the House of Lords considering a series of questions relating to the case. |
|
|
Insanity Defect of reason |
Clarke (1972) |
Defendant placed items into her bag in a supermarket and left without paying. Defendant said she had no recollection of placing the items in her bag. Medical evidence showed she was suffering from clinical depression and was diabetic, which lead her to be absent minded. The trial judge ruled that this raised the defence of insanity and therefore, the defendant plead guilty to theft. Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. The court found she was merely temporarily absent minded so was not therefore, insane. She could not be found guilty as she did not have the required mens rea. |
|
|
Insanity Disease of mind -Temporary |
Kemp (1957) |
Defendant, during a blackout, attacked his wife with a hammer causing her grievous bodily harm. Medical evidence showed that he suffered from arterialsclerosis, a condition which restricted the flow of blood to the brain and caused temporary lapses of consciousness. The court found this was insanity not automatism. It was held that there was no distinction between diseases of the mind and diseases of the body affecting the operation of the mind. Also whether a condition was permanent was irrelevant. |
|
|
Insanity Disease of mind -sources of diseases |
Sullivan (1984) |
Defendant was charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm following an attack on his friend. Medical evidence showed he was epileptic and was having an epileptic seizure when the injury was caused and defendant argued automatism. The trial judge ruled he would direct the jury to return a verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' so the defendant changed his plea to guilty of the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Defendant then appealed against his conviction. Court of Appeal and House of Lords confirmed the conviction. The source of the disease was found to be irrelevant. |
|
|
Insanity -reoccurring violence |
Bratty(1963) |
Defendant strangled the female victim in his car. Medical evidence showed he suffered from a psychomotor epileptic seizure at the time of the killing. The condition means someone can carry out a purposeful act whilst in an unconscious state. The court found this type of seizure could amount to insanity and provided a distinction between insanity and automatism |
|
|
Insanity Nature of quantity Wrong |
Windle (1952 |
Defendant killed the victim, his wife, by giving her 100 painkillers. Victim had often spoken of her wish to commit suicide and was suffering from a mental illness. Defendant gave himself up to the police stating'.. I suppose they will hang me for this...'. Defendant argued insanity but his statement suggested he understood the nature and quality of his act and realised it was wrong. Insanity was not accepted as a defence. The word 'wrong' means contrary to the law. The partial defence of diminished responsibility may be raised today in such a case. 4 |
|
|
Automatism involuntary acts |
Bratty (1963)
|
Defendant strangled the female victim in his car. Medical evidence showed he suffered from a psychomotor epileptic seizure at the time of the killing. Defendant claimed that'.. a blackness came over him..'.Lord Denning: '..No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context… means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking…'. |
|
|
automatism external factors |
Quick (1973) |
Defendant, a nurse, assaulted the victim, a paraplegic patient. Victim sustained several injuries including black eyes, broken nose and bruising and medical evidence confirmed these injuries could not be self inflicted. Defendant was a diabetic who had taken his insulin but not eaten enough. Defendant also admitted he had drunk alcohol, although his defence was not intoxication. Defendant was suffering from hypoglycaemia, caused by too much insulin, which leads to mental instability. Court of Appeal found that hypoglycaemia did not come within the definition of insanity as it is caused by the drug insulin. Defendant could rely on the defence of automatism and was entitled to be acquitted. |
|
|
Intoxication Nature of intoxication Voluntary |
Gallaghr (1963) |
Defendant stabbed the victim, his wife, to death. Defendant had bought a bottle of whiskey at the same time as the knife. He had drunk most of the bottle. Defendant found guilty of murder.On appeal it was defendant had necessary mens rea despite his intoxication at the time of the killing. |
|
|
Intoxication Nature of intoxication Involuntary Disinhibition |
Kingston (1994) |
Defendant, a homosexual with paedophiliac tendencies, was charged with indecent assault on a 15 year old boy. Victim and defendant were drugged without their knowledge. Defendant was photographed performing gross sexual acts with the victim, as part of a plot to blackmail the defendant.House of Lords found that the intoxicant had removed the inhibitions of the defendant, so he engaged in acts he would not have done if sober. However, the involuntary intoxication did not excuse this behaviour even where the defendant had been drugged by the fraud of another. |
|
|
Intoxication Nature of intoxication Involuntary Unanticipated strength |
Allen (1988) |
Defendant committed sexual assaults. Defendant had been drinking homemade wine. He argued it was much stronger than he realised and so he ended up so drunk he did not know what he was doing. It was held involuntary intoxication does not occur when the defendant voluntarily takes an intoxicant but does not realise the strength |
|
|
Intoxication Nature of intoxication involuntary Non dangerous drug |
Hardie (1985) |
Defendant was charged with arson after setting fire to a wardrobe in his flat. Defendant was depressed as his wife had told him to leave. He took some valium to calm himself down and he believed it was safe to take the tablets. Defendant had shown signs of intoxication, he slept for most of the day and then it seems set fire to the wardrobe. The court decided that this did not necessarily amount to voluntary intoxication. The defendant had taken a drug believing it would calm him down, which is the normal effect of valium and so he had not been reckless. The court found there was a distinction between 'dangerous' drugs, '..where it is common knowledge.. [the taker] may become aggressive or do dangerous or unpredictable things...' and 'non dangerous' drugs, such as valium. |
|
|
Intoxication Nature of intent |
Majewski (1976) |
Defendant attacked victims in a pub and the police when they tried to arrest him. Defendant was very intoxicated, after drinking and taking drugs. Defendant was convicted of three offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, under S47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA). House of Lords upheld his conviction. The court found that self induced (voluntary) intoxication can only be raised in defence to crimes of specific intent not basic intent offences. |
|
|
Consent life prolonging treatment |
Airdale NHS trust v Bland (1993) |
Mr Bland was severely injured at the Hillsborough disaster and was unconscious and in a vegetative state. He continued to breathe by himself and his digestive system still functioned. However, he could not communicate, was incapable of voluntary movement and had no sensory abilities. Doctors agreed there was no hope for recovery or improvement in his condition. After three years doctors and his family applied to the court for a decision on whether it was lawful to stop his artificial hydration and nutrition, which would lead to his death. House of Lords decided that his treatment could be stopped. |
|
|
Consent Euthanasia |
Pretty (2002) |
Dianne Pretty was paralysed by motor neurone disease. Her condition worsened which made it impossible for her to move or communicate easily even though her mental faculties remained. She wanted to be able to choose the time of her own death and would need her husband’s help. She took a case to try and ensure if he assisted in her suicide he would not be prosecuted. She argued that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to life and right to choose manner of death. The House of Lords and European Court of Human Rights, both found that Article 2 did not provide the right to die. The courts found the protection of vulnerable citizens was of paramount importance. Diane Pretty’s case failed. |
|
|
consent activities |
Brown (1993) |
Defendants participated in sado-masochistic homosexual activity and no one suffered permanent injury. Defendants argued the acts were consensual. The judge did not allow the argument so the defendant’s plead guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding. On appeal the court had to decide whether consent should have been allowed to be raised. The court confirmed consent could be only be used in cases of battery because causing any greater injury was not in the public interest. The court stated the defence of consent was only available in cases involving injuries more serious than common assault if they fell into one of the 'recognised exceptions'. A list was given including, '.. properly conducted games and sports, reasonable surgical interference and dangerous exhibitions...'. |
|
|
consent sports |
Barnes (2004) |
Defendant inflicted a serious leg injury upon the victim. Defendant had attempted to make a sliding tackle during an amateur football match. Defendant accepted that the tackle had been hard, but maintained that it had been fair and that the injury caused had been purely accidental. Defendant was convicted of a S20 offence under the Offences Against The Person Act (OAPA) 1861.Court of Appeal quashed the defendant’s conviction. The court held there is implied consent where the situation is within what can reasonably be expected and the game is conventionally played. Contact sports, including football, are 'recognised exceptions' on public policy grounds |
|
|
consent genuine consent |
Tabassum (2000) |
Defendant asked women to take part in a breast cancer survey where he showed them how to carry out breast examinations. The victims, three women, not knowing the defendant had no medical qualifications consented but would not have done so had they known other than for medical purposes. |
|
|
self defense necessity of force |
Gladstone williams (1987) |
Defendant saw a man struggling with a youth who was calling for help and intervened. In fact, the man was affecting a lawful arrest of the youth. Defendant found not guilty of assault. As the defendant honestly believed that he was preventing an unlawful assault his actions were justified and though he had misunderstood the situation. |
|
|
self defense necessity of force pre emptive action |
Bird (1985) |
BIRD (1985) Defendant was at her 17th birthday party and the victim, her ex-boyfriend arrived with his new girlfriend. Defendant and victim argued and she asked him to leave. He did so but then later returned and the argument continued. Defendant threw a drink over him, he pinned her against a wall and she punched him in the face, causing the victim to lose his eye. Defendant claimed that she had forgotten that she had a glass in her hand, which had subsequently broken. Defendant charged with wounding under S20 of the Offences Against Person Act 1861. Defendant argued self defence. Trial judge directed the jury that in order to rely on self defence, the defendant must demonstrate that she did not want to fight. Defendant convicted of S20 offence. The conviction was quashed on appeal. It was held that there was no obligation to demonstrate an unwillingness to fight. |
|
|
self defense reasonableness of force check point |
Clegg (1995) |
Defendant was a soldier at a checkpoint and shot at a stolen car which came towards him at speed. Defendant killed the victim, a woman in the back seat, with his final shot. Evidence proved this shot had been fired once the car had passed the checkpoint, so there was no argument for self defence. Defendant was convicted of murder and this was upheld on appeal. |
|
|
self defense reasonableness of force bed intruder |
Martin (2002) |
Defendant shot intruders at his home, one died and the other was seriously injured. Defendant heard the intruders and feared they may be violent towards him.Defendant’s appeal on the ground of self defence was rejected, as he was found to use unreasonable force. However, court did reduce the conviction to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility as the defendant was suffering from a longstanding paranoid personality disorder. |
