Criminal Law: Insanity, Automatism And Intoxication

Front 1

What is automatism?

Back 1

Automatism is involuntary conduct which is produced by an external factor (a factor external to the body)

Front 2

What is the effect of an automatism plea?

Back 2

If successful, this will equate a complete acquittal

Front 3

How regularly is automatism successfully pleaded?

Back 3

Very rarely automatism is successful

Front 4

How many requirements for automatism are there?

Back 4

Three

Front 5

What is the first requirement for automatism?

Back 5

The defendant must have suffered from a complete loss of voluntary control, not just a partial loss.

Front 6

What is the leading authority for the first element of automatism, that the defendant must have suffered a complete and not partial loss of voluntary control?

Back 6

AG’s Ref No.2 (1992)

Front 7

What is the second requirement for automatism?

Back 7

The lack of voluntary control must be caused by an external factor

Front 8

What is the leading authority for the second element of automatism that the lack of voluntary control must be caused by an external factor?

Back 8

R v T (1990)

Front 9

Is stress an external factor?

Back 9

As per R v T, stress can be an external factor but only where the stress is over and above the normal stresses of life

Front 10

Can diabetes count as an external factor?

Back 10

Yes, in cases where a person is in a state of automatism due to insulin. If a person suffers from diabetes but the offence is caused due to the lack of insulin, this is an internal aspect and would not be automatism.

Front 11

Which case shows that insulin is an external factor in diabetes cases, equating automatism?

Back 11

R v Quick (1973)

Front 12

What is the third requirement for automatism?

Back 12

The defendant must not be at fault in causing his condition.

Front 13

What is the leading authority for the third element of automatism that the defendant must not be at fault in causing his condition?

Back 13

R v Bailey 1983

Front 14

Explain the relevance of Quick and Bailey

Back 14

Quick is an authority for diabetes cases, showing that administering insulin can be an external aspect (satisfying the second element for automatism). Bailey is an authority for the third element of automatism that the defendant must not be at fault in causing his condition. Both Bailey and Quick are diabetes cases of taking insulin but forgetting to eat. Both satisfy the first two elements of automatism but both fail on the third element.

Front 15

What is it called when a person is aware or reckless that an action may bring on an automatic state e.g taking insulin but not eating?

Back 15

Self-induced automatism

Front 16

What is a specific intent crime?

Back 16

Where the definition of the crime requires only intent as the mens rea for at least one element of the actus reus.

Front 17

Give an example of specific intent crimes

Back 17

Murder, s.18 OATP, theft, burglary and robbery

Front 18

What is a basic intent crime?

Back 18

A crime of basic intent is one where the mens rea requires intent or a lesser stage of mind such as recklessness

Front 19

Give an example of a basic intent crimecan

Back 19

Assault, battery, s47 and s20 OATP

Front 20

Can self-induced automatism be a defence?

Back 20

Never to basic intent cases as per R v Bailey (1983)

Front 21

What is insanity also known as?

Back 21

Insane automatism

Front 22

What is insanity or insane automatism?

Back 22

Involuntary conduct caused by an internal aspect (internal to the body)

Front 23

What is the effect of pleading insanity successfully?

Back 23

The courts will return the special verdict meaning you are found not guilty by reason of insanity [NGRI]

Front 24

What was the history behind insanity cases?

Back 24

Before the 1990’s the only option for insanity cases was indefinite detention. Nowadays, there are options to release into the community.

Front 25

Who holds the burden of proof in cases of insanity?

Back 25

The defendant

Front 26

What is an example of a insane automatism case regarding diabetes?

Back 26

R v Hennessy (1989)

Front 27

What is an example of a insane automatism case regarding sleepwalking?

Back 27

R v Burgess (1991)

Front 28

What is an example of a insane automatism case regarding epilepsy?

Back 28

R v Sullivan (1984) although he pleaded stress as a trigger for the epilepsy which is an external factor

Front 29

What is an example of a insane automatism case regarding alcoholism?

Back 29

R v Burns (1984)

Front 30

What is an example of a insane automatism case regarding depression or absent mindedness?

Back 30

R v Clarke (1971) - unsuccessful

Front 31

What is an example of a insane automatism case regarding a medical condition such as arteriosclerosis?

Back 31

R v Kemp (1957)

Front 32

How many elements are there to satisfy for insanity?

Back 32

Three

Front 33

What are the three elements called?

Back 33

The McNaghten Rules (1843)

Front 34

What is the first element of the McNaghten Rules?

Back 34

The defendant must be labouring under a defect of reason, where the defendants powers of reason, memory or understanding are imparied

Front 35

What are the leading authorities for the first element of the McNaghten Rules that the defendant must be labouring under a defect of reason?

Back 35

R v Sullivan (1984) and R v Clarke (1972)

Front 36

What is the second element of the McNaghten Rules?

Back 36

The defect of reason must have been caused by a disease of the mind. Disease of the mind is a legal term and not a medical term. The defendant is suffering from an internal bodily defect (does not have to be recurring) which causes a malfunctioning of the mind.

Front 37

What is the leading authority for the second element of the McNaghten Rules?

Back 37

R v Kemp (1957) and C (2013)

Front 38

What is the third element of the McNaghten Rules?

Back 38

The defendant did not know the nature and quality of his actions or did not know that what he was doing was legally wrong

Front 39

What is the leading authority for the third element of the McNaghten Rules that the defendant did not know the nature and quality of his actions?

Back 39

R v Sullivan (1984)

Front 40

What does the case of Sullivan say about a person who does not know the nature or quality of their actions?

Back 40

It would be ‘someone who cuts a persons throat thinking they are cutting a loaf of bread’

Front 41

Which case shows a failure at the third element of the McNaghten Rules?

Back 41

R v Windle (1952) the defendant commented ‘I suppose they will hang me for this’ showing he knew the implications of his actions

Front 42

What are some criticisms of the law of automatism and insanity?

Back 42

1. The McNaghten Rules are unscientific

2. The burden of proof for insanity and how it clashes with ECHR Art. 6 the right to a fair trial

3. Possible clashes between insanity and ECHR Art. 5

Front 43

What is intoxication?

Back 43

Intoxication is involuntary conduct caused by the ingestion of drink or drugs

Front 44

What is the effect of a successful intoxication plea?

Back 44

Complete acquittal

Front 45

What is voluntary intoxication?

Back 45

Where a person voluntarily ingests drink or drugs

Front 46

What is involuntary intoxication?

Back 46

Where are person is tricked or forced into consuming a substance such as drugs or alcohol or where a person has an allergy to or suffers unintended effects of a legal prescription medication

Front 47

Can voluntary intoxication be a defence to all crimes?

Back 47

No, voluntary intoxication can only be a defence to specific intent crimes, and never basic intent crimes

Front 48

Can involuntary intoxication be a defence to any crime?

Back 48

Yes

Front 49

What is the leading authority for distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary intoxication as a defence?

Back 49

DPP v Majewski (1977), known as the Majewski Rules

Front 50

At what point during the offence can intoxication apply?

Back 50

Only where the defendant was actually intoxicated at the time, not where he has another condition brought on by heavy drinking in the past as per R v Harris (2013)

Front 51

What is the dutch-courage rule?

Back 51

The Dutch courage rule says that intoxication as a defence fails where a person forms the mens rea of an offence (intent to kill for example) before getting drunk

Front 52

Where does the Dutch courage rule come from?

Back 52

R v Gallagher (1963)

Front 53

Which two cases outline intoxication and specific intent crimes and what do they broadly say?

Back 53

R v Kingston (1995) and DPP v Majewski (1977) which day that a person must be incredibly drunk in specific intent crimes as there must be an absence of mens rea.