Capacity Defences
Insanity Automatism Intoxication
Insanity - special defence, D Automatism - act done by the
must be habouring under a muscles wihtout any control by
Voluntary intoxication
such a defect of reason, from the mind, such as a spasm, reflex - D knowingly
disease of the mind, as not to or convulsion; OR an act done by ingested recreational
know the nature/quality of the a person who is not conscious of
act they were doing, or that it what they're doing drugs/alcohol
what was wrong
M'Naghten Specific Intent - mens rea is
intention only
(1) Complete loss
(1) Defect of reason
R v Clarke
of control (1) If intoxicated, but still forms
intent than liability unaffected
(2) Disease of Mind (2) An external R v Sheehan & Moore
R v Kemp cause (2) If intoxicated, but unable to
form intent, cannot be liable
(3) Not knowing (3) Not self-
nature/quality of act DPP v Beard
R v Oye
induced
Basic intent - intention/
recklessness
(1) Intoxication supplies mens
rea + actus reus, establishes
liability
DPP v Majewski
Insanity Automatism Intoxication
Insanity - special defence, D Automatism - act done by the
must be habouring under a muscles wihtout any control by
Voluntary intoxication
such a defect of reason, from the mind, such as a spasm, reflex - D knowingly
disease of the mind, as not to or convulsion; OR an act done by ingested recreational
know the nature/quality of the a person who is not conscious of
act they were doing, or that it what they're doing drugs/alcohol
what was wrong
M'Naghten Specific Intent - mens rea is
intention only
(1) Complete loss
(1) Defect of reason
R v Clarke
of control (1) If intoxicated, but still forms
intent than liability unaffected
(2) Disease of Mind (2) An external R v Sheehan & Moore
R v Kemp cause (2) If intoxicated, but unable to
form intent, cannot be liable
(3) Not knowing (3) Not self-
nature/quality of act DPP v Beard
R v Oye
induced
Basic intent - intention/
recklessness
(1) Intoxication supplies mens
rea + actus reus, establishes
liability
DPP v Majewski
