The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

The defense of insanity is a defense that is available to all crimes. When the judge or the jury finds that the defendant falls under the scope of the defense, the verdict that is to be returned is the verdict of not guilty by virtue of insanity. Insanity differs from diminished responsibility (which is also a defense on a charge of murder or intending to cause GBH (grievous bodily harm)) in that insanity is caused by inherent factors and diminished responsibility is cause by external, often extenuating circumstances, for example repeated abuse or aggravating someone who is intolerant of the victim’s actions. The latter is more in line with the defense of automatism though automatism is usually the result of the excessive consumption of alcohol or the excessive taking of drugs, or a failure to do something, that the defendant who is under medication should do, for example taking insulin without eating any food and thus going into hypoglycemia. All three defenses, while t

Intoxication need not be raised if the defendant is suffering from a mental impairment that falls under S. 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. The fact that the defendant is suffering from a recognized mental ailment is sufficient to reduce a charge of murder to that of manslaughter S. 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 reads as follows: - Persons suffering from diminished responsibility.  (1) A person (“D”) who kills or is a party to the killing of another is not to be convicted of murder if D was suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning which— (a) arose from a recognized medical condition, (b) substantially impaired D's ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection (1A), and (c) provides an explanation for D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. In R v Hendy (2006) the accused a 16-year-old was suffering from some sort of mental impairment as a result of a head injury that he sustained as a child. He was callous and

The rule in R v O’Grady (1987) with regards to a mistake of facts induced by self-intoxication was reaffirmed in the 2005 case of R v Hatton, in that, a defendant cannot validly raise the defense of self-defense when he caused the death of another under a mistaken belief that was precipitated by the excessive consumption of alcohol or the taking of drugs. In R v Hatton (2005) the defendant and the victim met at a pub. The victim was a manic depressive and was prescribed lithium to keep his illness under control. On the day in question the defendant had not taken his lithium and the alcohol in is blood was above twice the legal limit. The defendant and the victim met in a pub. They did not know each other prior to that and on the day, the victim was acting strangely and passed himself off as a former member of the SAS and was exhibiting his martial arts skills. Both men had been drinking heavily and left together in the defendant’s car. The defendant drove the victim to his h

In instances of horseplay, the test that is to be applied, in order to decide if the defendant is guilty or otherwise, is the subjective test i.e. the question that is to be asked is whether the defendant had intended to cause the victim the harm that had resulted and not if a reasonable man can foresee that some harm would result from the defendant’s actions. In most instances in order to obtain a conviction the prosecution must establish that the defendant’s actions were beyond what could be construed as mere horseplay. In Richardson and Irwin (1999) two students lifted another over a balcony, after a bout of evening drinking and dropped him some twelve feet causing him serious injuries. The court decided that the defendants were not guilty. Clearly the boys were fooling around, and they had no intention of causing any form or type of injury to their friend. In such instances the question that is to be asked is whether the boys intended to cause the defendant the harm tha

As far as intent in criminal law is concerned, it does not matter if the defendant committed the act when he was drunk and as long as the prosecution can prove that the intent was always there, the defendant can be found guilty. Intent remains intent and if the prosecution can establish that the intention was there when the defendant was sober than the jury can convict. The fact that drugs or alcohol take away the defendant’s inhibitions does not negate or diminish intent and in some instances it does not even mitigate the crime or the offence for the reason that the intent was always there and the excessive drinking or the drugs merely made it easier for the defendant to carry out his or her intentions. In R v Kingston (1995), the defendant was a homosexual with pedophiliac predilections and was drugged by a friend, who was employed by another party to gain some leverage that they could use to settle a business dispute with the defendant. While he was intoxicated he was en

With regards to specific intent crimes, a charge of murder may be reduced to a charge of manslaughter, in instances of self-induced intoxication because the defendant lacked the mens rea for a conviction of murder i.e. intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm and may have made a mistake as to the amount of force that was exerted. In R v O’Connor (1991) the defendant who was drunk at the time killed a man in a fight in a pub and according to the defendant he was acting in self-defense. He was convicted of murder and he appealed his conviction. On appeal the appellant’s conviction of murder was reduced to that of manslaughter because the appellant did not have the mens rea required for murder see also R v O’Grady (1987). Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Ward

With regards to spiking or lacing another person’s drink, in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution will need to establish intention (mens rea) and nothing less will suffice i.e. it is a specific intent crime (strict liability offence) as opposed to a basic intent crime where the mens rea required to secure a conviction is either negligence or recklessness. In Blakely and Sutton v DPP (1991) the victim was having an affair with the principle defendant and after having a couple of drinks with her he decided to go home to his wife. In order to stop the defendant from going home, the principle defendant and her friend, spiked the victim’s drink (tonic water) with alcohol but before either of them could stop him, the victim got into his car and drove off. He was subsequently stopped by the police and failed a breathalyzer test. However, he was absolved of all charges when it was discovered that his drink was spiked, and the defendants were charged instead and were convicted

With regards to alcoholism, in order for it to be defense or to be considered or regarded as a defense, the disease must rob the victim of the ability to resist. If the defendant still retains the ability to resist than the taking of the intoxicant would be deemed voluntary and the rules with regards to self-intoxication would apply. The impairment caused by repeated drinking must be so substantive that it has robbed the defendant of the ability to reason and has caused “gross impairment to her judgement and emotion responses” – Watkins LJ. Whether the alcoholism has deprived the defendant of the ability to reason or has caused gross impairment to her judgement and emotion responses, will depend on the medical evidence that is produced during the trial. In R v Tandy (1989) the accused strangled her 11-year-old daughter to death after she complained to the accused that she had been sexually abused by her stepfather. The accused had been drinking heavily just prior to the

With regards to specific intent crimes for example murder, self-intoxication is a defense or more rightly a mitigating factor, but one the court will allow only sparingly i.e. the court, or the jury will look into all the evidence that is available to them as per s.8 of the Criminal Justice Act (1967) and decide if the defense should be made available to the defendant or if the court will accept the defendant’s plea and the reluctance of the court is primarily because of public interest or public policy reasons in that an innocent member of the public should be protected from the drunken mistake of another especially given the fact that the defendant got drunk on his own accord. It might be different if the defendant had been forced to drink or someone had pointed a gun to the defendant’s head and made him drink or if his drink was spiked but unless that was the case, the courts will show some reluctance in allowing the defense. In R v Stubbs (1989) the defendant who was dru

If the defendant makes a mistake as to the potency or the strength of the drugs or alcoholic beverage he has taken or consumed, and then commits a crime and seeks to rely on intoxication, the defense will not be made available to him and the fact that he was intoxicated will not reduce the severity of the crime or the offence. The rules with regards to self-intoxication will apply as they are. In R v Allen (1988) the defendant drank some home-made wine, and the drink was stronger than normal or the alcoholic content in the drink was higher than normal. The defendant in his intoxicated state committed sexual assault and during the trial sought to rely on the defense of intoxication. It was held that regardless of the strength of the drink or the fact that the defendant had made a mistake as to its potency, the consumption of the drink was still voluntary and thus the defense of intoxication would not avail itself to him especially in light of the fact that sexual assault is a