FlashcardsCriminal Law: Intoxication, Automatism, and Insanity Flashcards
View Flashcards → Download as-is, or customize
to fit your needs.
About:
This 49-card flashcard set covers three major criminal law defenses: intoxication, automatism, and insanity. It includes landmark cases such as R v Kingston, R v Bratty, R v Quick, and the McNaghten rules, along with statutory provisions and judicial rationales. Designed for law students preparing for exams or consolidating knowledge of denial and defense doctrines.
Terms in This Set
- Intoxication is an inculpatory doctrine NOT an exculpatory one. What does this mean.
- R v Sheehan and Moore [1975] and R v Kingston [1995] establish what principal regarding intoxication and mens rea?
- If D is intoxicated but lacks the requisite mens rea for the offence what question needs to be asked next?
- Ross v HM advocate [1991] establishes what regarding fully involuntary intoxication? (where D has no MR)
- What happens when D knows they are assuming an intoxicant but don’t appreciate the amount they are consuming or its strength?
- What happens where the intoxicant is dangerous and not non dangerous?
- What happens where the intoxicant is non dangerous and not dangerous like insulin or a prescription drug with adverse side effects?
- Which case is easier to apply in cases where D takes a non dangerous drug even one that isn't prescribed medically?
- Why is the distinction between basic intent and specific intent crimes relevant for intoxication rules?
- Examples likely to arise in the exam of basic intent offences that can use the intoxication rules.
- Examples likely to arise that are specific intent offence to which the intoxication rules cannot apply.
- What was decided in Heard [2007]
- What is the Dutch courage exception found in AG of Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]
- What is Lord Denning's rationale behind the Dutch courage exception?
- What does the BOOF ahh case of Richardson & Irwin [1999] require of Ds
- What is the good part of Richardson and Irwin - that is authority for a key principal.
- In O’Grady - self defence is not open where D makes a factual drunken mistake. This principal is now on a statutory footing - WHAT STATUE HOE?
- Jaggard v Dickinson [1981] holds a drunken mistake can work for mistaken consent in criminal damage cases which case suggests this reasoning should not extend to other crimes?
- Automatism is a denial found in R v Bratty [1963]
- When raising automatism the evidential burden is on who?
- When applying the denials to D’s conduct when does automatism apply? (in terms of order)
- What does the evidential burden D must surpass usually consist of? (the elements of an automatism denial)
- The evidential burden was not satisfied in Bratty [1963] - Why?
- Which driving cases illustrate the point that D will not satisfy the automatism requirements unless D suffers a TOTAL loss of control?
- AG’s reference No2 of 1992 also involves a claim of automatism by D why did it fail?
- Which case approves of the ‘complete destruction of voluntary control’ formula in the strict liability (driving crime) cases and applies it to crimes of mens rea?
- R v T (1990) suggests what
- What case illustrates the rule that the cause of D’s automatism must be external for the denial to run (also points out the unfairness) Hint: Sophia (cox)
- A lovely list of cases with examples of what conditions will be classed as internal/external.
- What principal underpins prior fault automatism
- R v Quick [1973] - how does the case outline prior fault automatism?
- R v Marison (1997) confirms what?
- R v Bailey [1983]
- Insanity can be raised by the prosecution the defence or the judge when will prosecution and defence be likely to raise it?
- Which offences do the insanity rules apply to - Loake v DPP [2017]
- Rationales for insanity rules from R v Sullivan [1984] and R v Bratty [1963]
- Evidential burden of defence - Woolmington v DPP [1935]
- What are the Mc’Naghten rules (the insanity rules) - Daniel McNaghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200
- When does insanity act as a denial to offending and not a defence? (D doesn't know what they are doing)
- When does insanity act as a true defence? (D doesn't know what they are doing is wrong)
- What are the elements of an insanity plea?
- In R v Clarke [1972] what did the CA hold? on defect of reason
- Case law examples of what is classed as a disease of the mind
- What does J Devlin say in Kemp [1957] about disease of the mind?
- What does R v Roach [2011] say about multiple causes involved in D’s insane automatism?
- In practice what does the Crown Court tend to do in cases of sleepwalking?
- Harris [2013] is an example of insanity failing to deny D’s MR why?
- In order for insanity to run as a defence what must D prove? And most recent authority on issue?
- R v Oye [2013] says what about insanity and raising self defence?
How to Use This Flashcard Set
Print these flashcards for study sessions, test prep, or self-paced review. Click 'View Flashcards' to edit terms, add images, or change the layout before printing.
