Criminal

Law I Lecture VI: General Defences I

By: Dr. Janeille Zorina Matthews

 Lecture VI
Introduction

Diminished Insanity and

Introduction Infancy Intoxication
Responsibility Automatism

2
 Lecture VI
Introduction

Diminished Insanity and

Introduction Infancy Intoxication
Responsibility Automatism

• How do we
understand
defences?
• What do these
defences have
in common?

3
 Introduction

Important Themes in Criminal Law

q ACT V. OMISSION: How much conduct is enough?
When is failure to act enough? When should

accomplices/conspirators be held criminally liable?
q CONDUCT V. INTENT: What mental state ought to be

required to send someone to prison?
q PRIMACY OF INTENT: What is the relationship between

intent and motive?
q DEFENCES: If there is liability, when should we give
people a defence?
4
 Introduction

“An act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless his mind is also guilty.”
--Haughton v. Smith [1975] AC 476 at 491

Three Components of Criminal Liability

Actus Reus Mens Rea No Defence
The actual The criminal state The absence of an
criminal act – the of mind – the exculpatory defence,
conduct

intent justification or excuse

The conduct must The intent may Where a defence is

be proven be inferred raised, the prosecution
must negate it by proof
beyond reasonable
doubt

5
 Introduction

Defences that Speak to Mental Defences that Don’t...

Capacity...
1.  Infancy 1.  Mistake
2.  Diminished Responsibility 2.  Necessity
3.  Insanity 3.  Duress/Coercion
4.  Automatism 4.  Self-Defence
5.  Intoxication

Argument: “wait, I can’t be held Argument: either, “I know I

liable because I really didn’t did it, but I did it by
understand what I was doing...” accident...” or, “I really had to
do it and you probably would
have done it too”
6
 Infancy

Diminished Insanity and

Introduction Infancy Intoxication
Responsibility Automatism

• What is the
age of criminal
responsibility
at common
law?
• What is stare
decisis
• What is the
age of criminal
responsibility
in Caribbean?
7
 Infancy

INFANCY: COMMON LAW POSITION

A child cannot be convicted of an offence which occurs when
she is under 10 because it is irrebuttably presumed that no
child under the age of 10 years can be guilty of an offence.

“The distinction between the treatment and the punishment of
child offenders has popular and political overtones...we have
been discussing not so much a legal but a social problem, with a
dash of politics thrown in, and emphasises that it should be
within the exclusive remit of Parliament...This is a classic case
for parliamentary investigation, deliberation and legislation.”
-- C v. DPP [1996] 1 AC 1

8
 Infancy

INFANCY: COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN POSITION

Age of criminal responsibility varies across the region:

Anguilla 10 Grenada above 7

Antigua & Barbuda 8 Guyana 14
Bahamas 10 Jamaica 12
Barbados 11 Montserrat 10
Belize 12 St. Kitts & Nevis 8
British Virgin Islands 10 St. Lucia 12
Bermuda 8 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 8
Cayman Islands 10 Trinidad & Tobago above 7
Dominica 12 Turks & Caicos Islands 8

9
 Diminished
Responsibility

Diminished Insanity and

Introduction Infancy Intoxication
Responsibility Automatism

• Diminished
responsibility
defined
• Statutory position
in Jamaica
• Justifications for
diminished
responsibility

10
 Diminished
Responsibility

DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
A defendant who would be otherwise guilty
of murder (whether as a perpetrator or an
accomplice) has a partial defence if she
proves the elements of diminished
responsibility

11
 Diminished
Responsibility

Diminished Responsibility Defined

Section 5 of Jamaica’s Offences Against the Person Act:

“Where a person kills or is party to the killing of
another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was
suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether
arising from a condition of arrested or retarded
development of mind or any inherent causes or
induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired
his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in
doing or being a party to the killing.”

12
 Introduction

Elements of Diminished Responsibility

Defendant must prove:

1.  Suffering from an abnormality of the mind which,
2.  Was due to a condition of arrested or retarded
development of mind or any inherent causes or
induced by disease or injury; and
3.  The abnomality of mind was such as to have
substantially impaired his mental responsibility
for his acts or omissions in killing or being a party
to the killing
13
 Insanity and
Automatism

Diminished Insanity and

Introduction Infancy Intoxication
Responsibility Automatism

• Insanity defined
• Insanity in the
Caribbean
• The elements of
insanity
• Problems with the
defence

14
 Insanity and
Automatism

INSANITY
To establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be
clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the
party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from
disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the
act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he
was doing what was wrong.
-- M’Naughten’s Case (1843) 10 CI &F 200

15
 Insanity and
Automatism

Elements of Insanity

Defendant must prove on balance of probabilities:

1.  Disease of the mind
2.  Defect of reason
3.  Did not know nature and quality of act, or if she
did know, that she did not know it was wrong

16
 Insanity and
Automatism

AUTOMATISM
The state in which an act is done by the
muscles without any control by the mind
(such as a reflex action, or a spasmodic or
convulsive act) or if it is done during a state
involving a loss of consciousness

17
 Insanity and
Automatism

Diminished Insanity and

Introduction Infancy Intoxication
Responsibility Automatism

• Intoxication is
creation of
common law
• Voluntary
Intoxication
• Involuntary
intoxication

18
 Intoxication

INTOXICATION
Intoxication is an area that is strictly judge made – it is a
creation of common law. Intoxication is treated differently in
law depending whether it is voluntary, i.e. where it results
from the defendant knowingly taking alcohol or some other
drug or intoxicating substance or a combination of these, or
involuntary where the intoxication is usually induced by a
third party rather than being self-induced

19
 Intoxication

Basic Rules

1. Intoxication is no defence if, despite the

intoxication, D formed mens rea
2. Where D was involuntarily intoxicated and
failed to form mens rea D is entitled to be
acquitted
3. Where D was voluntarily intoxicated and failed
to form mens rea, D is entitled to be acquitted
if the offence charged is one of “specific
intent”
20
 Intoxication

Specific Intent v. Basic Intent

Specific Intent Crimes Basic Intent Crimes
➭ Murder ➭ Manslaughter (in all forms)
➭ Wounding or causing grievous ➭ Rape
bodily harm with intent ➭ Sexual Assault
➭ Theft ➭ Malicious Wounding or
➭ Fraud infliction of grievous bodily harm
➭ Robbery ➭ Assault occasioning Actual
➭ Burglary Bodily Harm
➭ Handling of stolen goods ➭ Common Assault
➭ Arson/criminal damage with ➭ Arson/criminal damage by
intent being reckless whether property
➭ Attempt would be damaged or destroyed

21