Criminal Law: Insanity Defense Quiz
46 Questions
4 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

In Codere, what does not knowing the nature and quality of the act refer to?

  • The emotional impact of the act.
  • The moral nature of the act.
  • The legal implications of the act.
  • The physical nature of the act. (correct)

    • Knowledge that the act was wrong is considered to be morally wrong in legal terms.

    False

    What must stem from an internal factor for insanity to be used as a defense?

    Insanity

    The case of R v Quick relates to the defense of __________.

    <p>automatisms</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the following cases with their relevant concepts:

    <p>R v Oye = Not knowing the nature and quality of the act R v Windle = Knowledge that the act was wrong R v Quick = Insanity and voluntary intoxication Broome v Perkins = Involuntary act/loss of control</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following statements is true regarding a defect of reason?

    <p>It involves being deprived of the power to reason.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The M'Naghten Rules state that the accused must prove they had a defect of reasoning caused by a disease of the body.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What must an accused prove to rebut the presumption of sanity under the M'Naghten Rules?

    <p>That they were suffering from a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    According to the M'Naghten Rules, a ________ of reason is necessary to prove insanity.

    <p>defect</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the following conditions with their respective cases:

    <p>Arteriosclerosis = R v Kemp Epilepsy = R v Sullivan Diabetes = R v Hennessy Sleepwalking = R v Burgess</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following statements is true regarding external causes of automatism?

    <p>A physical blow, like being struck with a hammer, can lead to automatism.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Self-induced automatism can be a valid defense in basic intent crimes.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In which case was it established that automatism cannot be used as a defense if caused by intoxication?

    <p>DPP v Majewski</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Automatism due to _______ cannot be used as a defense because it is considered reckless behavior.

    <p>intoxication</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the cases with their relevant points regarding automatism:

    <p>R v Quick = Internal factors do not qualify as automatism. R v Hennessy = Internal factors do not qualify as automatism. R v Bailey = Self-induced automatism may not be a defense. R v Hardie = Automatism defense may be valid if lack of awareness is proven.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following is NOT a type of duress?

    <p>Duress of consent</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Duress of threats can be used as a defense for murder.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What must the threat involve for it to qualify as duress of threats?

    <p>Death, serious harm, or rape</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the Graham Test, the _____ part considers if a reasonable person sharing the characteristics of the accused would have acted similarly.

    <p>objective</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the following cases with their relevance to duress:

    <p>Howe = Clarified that duress does not apply to murder, attempted murder, or treason Valderrama-Vega = Allowed the cumulative effect of multiple threats Ortiz = Established that threats to family can qualify for duress R v Bowen = Identified personal characteristics to consider in the subjective test</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following situations qualifies as involuntary intoxication?

    <p>The defendant took prescribed drugs.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Intoxicated mistake can always serve as a valid defense in any crime.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What must be determined first when analyzing a defendant's intoxication related to a crime?

    <p>Whether the intoxication is voluntary or involuntary.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who unknowingly consumed a drink with _____ alcohol content may claim involuntary intoxication.

    <p>high</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the case to its relevant context in intoxication defenses:

    <p>R v Hardie = Soporific drugs defense R v Lipman = Specific intent crime mistake R v O'Grady = Mistaken self-defense due to voluntary intoxication R v Hatton = Similar mistaken self-defense case</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following crimes does the duress of circumstance defense NOT apply to?

    <p>Murder</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The threat must come directly from a person for the duress of circumstance defense to be applicable.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the minimum requirement for the threat in duress of circumstance regarding injury?

    <p>Death or serious injury</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The duress of circumstance defense follows a two-part ______ test.

    <p>Graham</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the case with its principle regarding duress of circumstance:

    <p>R v Howe = Defense not available for murder R v Gill = Escape must be possible R v Abdul-Hussain = Threat must be imminent R v Hasan = Voluntary exposure to danger does not allow defense</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which type of intent requires a specific mental state for the defendant?

    <p>Specific intent</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Voluntary intoxication can be used as a defense for basic intent crimes.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the consequence if the defendant had the required mens rea for the crime?

    <p>The intoxication defense cannot be used.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In cases of involuntary intoxication, taking prescribed __________ is considered a full defense.

    <p>medication</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the outcome for specific intent crimes if a defendant uses the voluntary intoxication partial defense?

    <p>Lesser charge</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the type of intoxication with the corresponding characteristic:

    <p>Voluntary Intoxication = Defense only for specific intent crimes Involuntary Intoxication = Full defense regardless of intent Soporific Drugs = Cause sleepiness or relaxation Prescribed Drugs = Not considered reckless</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Drunken intent is not considered as intent if the defendant is intoxicated.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is an example of a situation that leads to involuntary intoxication?

    <p>Taking prescribed medication</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What must a threat involve for the duress defense to be applicable?

    <p>Death, serious harm, or rape</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Multiple threats can be considered cumulatively when assessing duress.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What does the 'Graham Test' assess?

    <p>Whether the defendant had a good reason to fear serious harm and if a reasonable person would react similarly.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The threat must be _______ or 'almost immediate' for the defense of duress to apply.

    <p>imminent</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the following cases with their significance regarding duress principles:

    <p>R v Valderrama-Vega = Cumulative nature of threats R v Bowen = Objective factors in Graham Test R v Gill = Importance of reasonable escape opportunities Hasan, Sharp = Voluntary exposure to threats</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What can weaken the defense of duress?

    <p>Failing to take a reasonable opportunity to escape</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Voluntarily exposing oneself to threats can make the duress defense unavailable.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What role does the 'nexus' play in the defense of duress?

    <p>It establishes a crucial connection between the threat and the crime committed.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    General Defences: Duress A01

    • There are three aspects to duress:
      • Duress of threats - this is the most common type of duress where someone commits a crime because they are threatened.
      • Duress of circumstance - This defence may be used by someone who may be forced to commit a crime because of their circumstances.
      • Necessity - This is where the D believes their action is justified because they were put in a position where they had to choose between two evils.

    Duress of Threats

    • It is a full defence and can be used against any crime except for Murder, attempted Murder, Accomplice to Murder and possibly treason - Howe.
    • Lynch
      • Threat has to be of death, serious harm or rape - Howe,
      • Valderrama-Vega
        • There can be a combination of threats (cumulative effect) but the threat of death or serious injury must play a major part - R v Valderrama-Vega
    • Threat to defendant, close family or of someone to whom a responsibility is owed - Ortiz, Wright
    • Graham test - would a reasonable person resist the threats (subjective and objective)
      • Was the D compelled to act as they did because they believed they had good cause to fear serious injury or death? (subjective)
      • If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded in the same way? (objective)
        • R v Bowen, the courts said the following could be relevant: Age, pregnancy, serious physical disability, recognised mental illness and gender

    Nexus

    • Nexus between threat and nomination of the offence [You must make sure when problem solving that you are highlighting the connection (NEXUS) between the crime nominated (the threat) and the crime committed (the outcome)] - Cole, Abdul-Hussain

    Imminent Threat

    • Threat must be 'imminent' - Hudson & Taylor, Abdul-Hussain or 'almost immediate' - Hasan
    • Could the D escape?
      • D will be expected to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity that they have to escape. If they fail to take it, the defence may fail - R v Gill
    • Gangs and voluntary exposure
      • If the D laid themselves open to threats, then there is no defence - R v Hasan, Sharp

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Description

    Test your understanding of the insanity defense under the M'Naghten Rules with this quiz. Explore key concepts like defect of reason, case law, and the implications of automatism. Perfect for students of criminal law or those interested in legal principles.

    More Like This

    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Open
    Browser
    Browser