Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Defences: Intoxication
Defences: Insanity and Automatism
Homicide: Murder
Homicide: Voluntary Manslaughter
Homicide Defence: Provocation
Barry who is suffering from depression and paranoia and is prescribed medication,
attends a party with his partner Clare. At the party, he thinks he is drinking orange juice
but someone has laced it with vodka. Barry drinks progressively more of the drink and it
reacts with his medication to leave him feeling disorientated.
He goes upstairs to sit on a bed but finds Clare lying on the bed with Andrew. Barry
loses all sense of control, takes a nearby vase, and smashes it over Andrews head. Andrew
later dies.
Barry meanwhile runs from the house and sits under a nearby tree. While sitting
there, Sharon approaches to offer some comfort to Barry. He is, however, in a disturbed
state and thinks that Sharon is going to attack him in retribution for his earlier actions. He
therefore reacts by jumping from his slumber and strangling Sharon until she dies.
Consider the criminal liability of Barry
Harm Occurred: A is killed by B
Did B intend to kill A? Mens Rea
Did B have the mens rea?
Mens rea used to describe defendants state of mind.
Act isnt guilty unless mind is
No statutory definition of intention judges usually direct jury to give intention its
ordinary meaning. The widely accepted view is that the defendant intends a
consequence of his action if he acts with the aim or purpose of producing that
consequence.
A result which is foreseen as virtually certain simply is intended.
Woolin Lord Steyn changed Nedrick Lord Lane quote from, jury should be directed
that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention with jury should be
directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention. Thus he changed
the word infer to find.
Definitional approach this change from infer to find makes a difference. If you find
intention, then it amounts to intention itself. Under this definition they have no choice
but to find someone liable if there is intention. The change takes away the jurys
discretion, if they can find virtual certainty it amounts to intention
Evidential interpretation this approach is for people who say that the change has not
made much of a difference, as this definition puts weight on the word entitled.
Therefore, the jury are entitled but not required to find the intention, hence leaving the
discretion that even if there is virtual certainty, they can find intention or not.
Recklessness?
Murder?
Difference between murder and manslaughter is intention.
The mens rea of murder is an intention to kill or cause GBH. Cunningham
The objective part of the test requires a level of control; it is an external standard so
people cant rely on their personal differences that they are particularly angry.
Barry loses all sense of control Automatism
Automatism is a fully automatic state, where a person has no control over their actions
and no deliberate control over their mind.
To plead automatism a defendant needs to show: he had suffered a complete loss of
voluntary control, this was caused by an external factor, he was not at fault is losing
capacity
Automatism is a lack of mens rea and actus reus. It is a claim that he is not acting.
Bratty Defendant charged with murder, but he claimed he felt really strange when he
committed the murder and pleaded insanity and automatism
A-G no 2 to rely on automatism there must be a complete loss of voluntary control
Self induced automatism self induced automatism will not be accepted if the person
should or could have reasonably have foreseen that automatism would be the result of
their actions.
The defendant cannot plead automatism if he is responsible for causing his conditions.
So if the defendants mental state is caused by taking alcohol or an illegal drug he cannot
plead automatism. B unwillingly took alcohol though.
B is involuntarily intoxicated
The defence of intoxication often concerns someone who is so intoxicate that they did
not form the relevant mens rea for the offence.
The question is a question of fact Did they form a mens rea?
DPP v Beard Lord Birkenhead LC said, ... where a specific intent is an essential
element in the offence, evidence of state of drunkenness rendering the accused
incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to
determine whether he had in fact formed the intent necessary to constitute the
particular crime. If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required
he could not be convicted....
Sheehan CA said that the intoxication was only relevant if the fact that they were so
drunk meant they didnt form the mens rea
A-G v Gallagher person could just get drunk to do an offence and blame it on being
drunk, so he cannot rely on self-induced drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder
Lipman intoxication is not a defence to manslaughter. So B could not rely on it.
Barry was involuntarily intoxicated if the defendant is involuntarily intoxicated they
may raise evidence that they didnt form the mens rea according to the intoxication.
Kingston if a defendant has the necessary mens rea for the offence the fact that he
only committed it because he was involuntarily intoxicated provides no defence.
Murder is a specific intent
Manslaughter is a basic intent Beard
Diminished Responsibility
Diminished responsibility only a defence to murder, if successful reduces charge to
manslaughter
R v Dietschemann - As Lord Hutton noted, there are only two circumstances in which
the effects of alcohol can themselves be regarded as an abnormality of the mind:
1) Where the taking of alcohol has actually damaged the brain;