Remaining test (sijal zafar)

Except where the defendant put themselves in that state recklessly and recklessness is enough
to constitute mensrea. And appeal was dismissed on grounf that defendant is aware of his
condition and still omit to not taken food.
For crime of negligence automatism Is not a defence: reference to case: Kay v butterworth
In this case D fell asleep whilst driving D’s conduct was vcoluntary as he has chosen to drive even
though he knew he was tired. So D was found guilty of careless driving.
c) Insanity:
it is als known as insane automatism and it trigger due to internal factors. And defendant is relying
upon the mental condition in which the court give special verdict for them, to proof the insanity
you apply the rule of M’NAghten which come under insane automatism, these are:
 where you hav defect of reason
 disease of mind
 not know to the nature and quality of act
 not to know that was he doing was wrong

INTOXICATION
Intoxication is not a defence in itself. It operates like automatism to provide evidential basis for
acclaim of no mensrea. Reference to case: R Vs Lipman; in which the appellant had taken some
LSD, he was hallucinating and in this state he killed a girl by cramming bedshets into her mouth.
He raised the defence of intoxication to escape liability, it was held that his intoxication can b
used to escape the liability for murder but not for manslaughter
Intoxication is not a defence for crimes of negligence or strict liability unless it can be presented
as one of automatism. Reference to case: Blakely and Sutton; in which D spiked B soft drink with
alcohol and b unaware of this drove to his house , at way stopped by police officer and was
breathalysed. B was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol . the fact that he is unaware is not
and answer to strict liability offences
For the crime of mensrea they will remain guilty if they said that they cant do that thing if they
were sober. Reference to case” R v Kingston; in which Kingston was drunk involuntarily by friend
and the friend set a scenario in which Kingston had done sexual activity with 15year old boy and
was convicted of indecent assault. He raised the defenc that if he had not drugged he would not
have acted in such a way. The court held that if D had formed mensrea for offence then
involuntary intoxication is not a defence so he will befound guilty and appeal dismissed.
The voluntary intoxication can support defendant claim that they lacked mensrea for specific
intent crime not for basic intent crime, reference to case: DPP vs Beard ;the appealant whilst
intoxicated raped a 13 year old girl. And put his hand over his mouth resultantly he died. D had
been charged with murder and raised the defence that he was too intoxicated to fom mensrea.
It was held that D conviction for murder was quashed and he was convicted of manslaughter.
If defendant become intoxicated to gain courage to commit specific intent crime, they will not
be able to rely on intoxication. Reffernce to case: A-G of northern Ireland V Gallagher; in which
d killed his wife by taking alcohol to encourage himself and in this case jhe was convicted of
murder. As drunkent intent is still intent.
If the defences are mistaken as to the defendant they remain available to them and in self
defence there is no seld induce intoxication. reference to case: r v o conner in which the
appealant was convicted of murder as at the time of killing he was intoxivcated and believed hat
he wsa under attack, he appeal against conviction and the appeal was allowed and he was
convicted for manslaughter after appeal.