Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defences, Basic intent offences - crimes that can be committed through…

- - - - The defect of reason must impair the D's power of reasoning (absent-mindedness and confusion are not enough).
      - R v Clarke - not a defect of reason as short periods of absent-mindness fell far short of amounting to a defect of reason
    - - This is determined by the judge but the disease must be a malfunctioning of the mind, not the brain (R v Kemp)
      - Insanity has been considered in cases related to conditions such as:
        
        Hardening of the arteries - R v Kemp. Courts held it was an internal factor and therefore a disease of the mind.
        
        Sleep disorder - R v Burgess. Courts held it be a disease of the mind.
        
        Epilepsy - R v Sullivan. Courts held it is a disease of the mind.
        
        Diabetes:
        
        R v Hennessy - Held to be a disease of the mind because he was hyperglycaemic and this was caused by the diabetes
        
        R v Quick - Held to not be a disease of the mind because at the time he was hypoglycaemic so it was not caused by his diabetes, but by his use of insulin.
  - - - A guardianship order under the Mental health act 1983.
      - A supervision treatment order under schedule 2 of the 1991 act.
      - A hospital order and an order restricting discharge.
      - An order for absolute discharge.
- - - - Can also occur where the D knows that the effect of taking prescribed drugs will make them intoxicated.
    - - To be used as a defence D must lack the Mens rea - R v Sheehan and Moore
      - If D's mens rea is removed, the offence will be lowered to its basic intent equivalent - R v Lipman
    - - Being drunk is a reckless course of conduct and therefore D will have no defence - R v majweski