Jeremy went to the pub with his friend Dave. After drinking heavily for a couple of hours, Dave informed
Jeremy that he had slept with his girlfriend. Jeremy was furious, and smashed a glass over Dave’s face,
cutting his eye socket open and gashing his forehead.
Assume Jeremy has been charged with GBH. How will intoxication change the application of GBH s18
and s20? [10 mark]
It is autre clare that Dave is voluntarily intoxicated due to drinking heavily and in this case, intoxication is only
applicable to specific intent cases such as murder, rape and GBH s18. This can be seen in the cases of DPP v Beard
where he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter which is not a specific intent case. Similarly, in R
v Lidar, Lord Akin stated that one is automatically reckless if they get drunk, meaning that the defence of voluntary
intoxication cannot apply to offences with basic intent. Regarding our defendant Jeremy, this would mean that he
may be able to claim the defence for GBH s18 as this is a specific intent crime but not s20 which is a basic intent
crime.
For Jeremy to claim the defence of intoxication for GBH s18, he must prove that he was so intoxicated that he did
not understand what he was doing. This would be the same if he was involuntarily intoxicated. The application of
this can be seen in R v Kingston where despite D being involuntarily intoxicated, this defence did not apply to his
raping of a child as he had previously had sexual fantasies of children so to some extent knew what he was doing.
Similarly, Jeremy being furious over Dave sleeping with his girlfriend proves that he still had some control and was
not intoxicated enough and thus would be unable to claim intoxication for GBH s18, although if he did, he would
likely still be charged with s20 anyway.
Therefore, it is evident that Jeremy’s intoxication will not change the application of GBH s18 and s20.
Gareth went for a jog before breakfast. After a couple of miles, he began to feel faint, and lost
consciousness. It later transpires that in this state, which he later cannot recall, Gareth attacked a
woman with a large stick, breaking several bones. Gareth is diagnosed with Diabetes, and now takes
insulin. He has not claimed to suffer another episode.
Assume Gareth has been charged with a non-fatal offence under the OAPA 1861. Assess Gareth’s
chances of successfully pleading insanity. 10 marks
The defence of insanity and its rules were first established in the case of R v McNaughten and require a defect of
reason arising from a disease of the mind, which must be an internal factor, and caused D to either fail to recognise
the nature of his act or realise that what he was doing was wrong. Firstly, we shall assess a defect of reason, which as
held in R v Clarke cannot simply be absent mindedness. This may cause issues regarding our defendant Gareth as he
could not recall his actions and thus suffered absent mindedness, however as held in R v Hennessy, if a disease of the
mind caused this then it may suffice. We must now assess disease of the mind, defined in R v Bratty as a state of
mind which the reasonable personal would determine abnormal. This disease must come from an internal factor,
which can be seen in the cases of R v Quick and R v Hennessy. Despite both being diabetic, Quick injected himself
with insulin so this was an external factor whereas Hennessy forgot to take insulin so this was an internal factor and
therefore insanity. It is uncertain whether Gareth’s diabetes was internal or external and this would impact his
success of pleading the defence. Assuming that it was internal however, diabetes constitutes a disease of the mind,
as shown in R v Hennessy.
We must now assess whether this disease of the mind caused Gareth to either failure to understand the nature of
his act (R v Oye) or understand that what he was doing was wrong (R v Windle) and only one of these has to be met
to amount to the defence of insanity. Due to being unable to recall what happened, it is evident that Gareth was
unable to understand the nature of his act. Therefore, it is autre clare that if his diabetes is held to be an internal
factor and he forgot to inject himself, similar to R v Hennessy, then he would be able to successfully claim the
Jeremy that he had slept with his girlfriend. Jeremy was furious, and smashed a glass over Dave’s face,
cutting his eye socket open and gashing his forehead.
Assume Jeremy has been charged with GBH. How will intoxication change the application of GBH s18
and s20? [10 mark]
It is autre clare that Dave is voluntarily intoxicated due to drinking heavily and in this case, intoxication is only
applicable to specific intent cases such as murder, rape and GBH s18. This can be seen in the cases of DPP v Beard
where he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter which is not a specific intent case. Similarly, in R
v Lidar, Lord Akin stated that one is automatically reckless if they get drunk, meaning that the defence of voluntary
intoxication cannot apply to offences with basic intent. Regarding our defendant Jeremy, this would mean that he
may be able to claim the defence for GBH s18 as this is a specific intent crime but not s20 which is a basic intent
crime.
For Jeremy to claim the defence of intoxication for GBH s18, he must prove that he was so intoxicated that he did
not understand what he was doing. This would be the same if he was involuntarily intoxicated. The application of
this can be seen in R v Kingston where despite D being involuntarily intoxicated, this defence did not apply to his
raping of a child as he had previously had sexual fantasies of children so to some extent knew what he was doing.
Similarly, Jeremy being furious over Dave sleeping with his girlfriend proves that he still had some control and was
not intoxicated enough and thus would be unable to claim intoxication for GBH s18, although if he did, he would
likely still be charged with s20 anyway.
Therefore, it is evident that Jeremy’s intoxication will not change the application of GBH s18 and s20.
Gareth went for a jog before breakfast. After a couple of miles, he began to feel faint, and lost
consciousness. It later transpires that in this state, which he later cannot recall, Gareth attacked a
woman with a large stick, breaking several bones. Gareth is diagnosed with Diabetes, and now takes
insulin. He has not claimed to suffer another episode.
Assume Gareth has been charged with a non-fatal offence under the OAPA 1861. Assess Gareth’s
chances of successfully pleading insanity. 10 marks
The defence of insanity and its rules were first established in the case of R v McNaughten and require a defect of
reason arising from a disease of the mind, which must be an internal factor, and caused D to either fail to recognise
the nature of his act or realise that what he was doing was wrong. Firstly, we shall assess a defect of reason, which as
held in R v Clarke cannot simply be absent mindedness. This may cause issues regarding our defendant Gareth as he
could not recall his actions and thus suffered absent mindedness, however as held in R v Hennessy, if a disease of the
mind caused this then it may suffice. We must now assess disease of the mind, defined in R v Bratty as a state of
mind which the reasonable personal would determine abnormal. This disease must come from an internal factor,
which can be seen in the cases of R v Quick and R v Hennessy. Despite both being diabetic, Quick injected himself
with insulin so this was an external factor whereas Hennessy forgot to take insulin so this was an internal factor and
therefore insanity. It is uncertain whether Gareth’s diabetes was internal or external and this would impact his
success of pleading the defence. Assuming that it was internal however, diabetes constitutes a disease of the mind,
as shown in R v Hennessy.
We must now assess whether this disease of the mind caused Gareth to either failure to understand the nature of
his act (R v Oye) or understand that what he was doing was wrong (R v Windle) and only one of these has to be met
to amount to the defence of insanity. Due to being unable to recall what happened, it is evident that Gareth was
unable to understand the nature of his act. Therefore, it is autre clare that if his diabetes is held to be an internal
factor and he forgot to inject himself, similar to R v Hennessy, then he would be able to successfully claim the
