Chapter 6 Multiple choice questions

. The most significant distinction between insanity and automatism are as follows (there may be more than one correct answer):

Insanity means involuntary action due to an internal cause whilst automatism means involuntary action due to an external cause.

Insanity is permanent whereas automatism is temporary.

Insanity is madness whereas automatism is a case of involuntary action.

The burden of proof is on D to prove insanity whereas there is no burden of proof on D to prove automatism. The former leads to NGRI whereas the latter leads to an acquittal.

. What is the correct definition of 'mind' (as in 'disease of the mind'):

'Any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur' Bratty [1963].

'…the condition of the brain is irrelevant and so is the question of whether the condition of the mind is curable or incurable, transitory or permanent.' Kemp [1957].

'An involuntary act…means an act done by the muscles, without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion…' Bratty [1963].

'…the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding…' Sullivan [1984].

. In which of the following would D satisfy either of the two M'Naghten cognitive tests for insanity:

D is under the delusion that he is cutting his hedge but is in fact sawing off his neighbour's head.

D is under the delusion that he is killing a rival but is in fact strangling his girlfriend.

D, who is severely depressed, knows that he has killed someone but thinks it morally right because his victim was a paedophile.

D, who is severely depressed, kills his suicidal wife, knowing that it is wrong to kill.

. Which of the following would be a basis for automatism?

Sleepwalking

An epileptic fit

Diabetic coma (hyperglycaemia)

A blow to the head

. Which of the following would be the basis of a plea of automatism for a diabetic defendant:

Hyperglycaemia

Hypoglycaemia due to insulin and alcohol

Hypoglycaemia due to insulin and cannabis

Insulin

. To which of the following would self-induced automatism through insulin, alcohol and failure to eat generally provide a defence to a diabetic defendant:

Murder

Manslaughter

S20 OAPA 1861 GBH

Assault

. Which of the following represents the Majewski rule in intoxication?

A drunken intent is still an intent.

Voluntary intoxication may provide a partial defence to a crime of specific intent where s/he lacked the necessary intent but no defence at all to a crime of basic intent.

D will have a partial defence to crimes of specific intent provided he was drunkenly incapable of forming it.

If charged with a crime of specific intent, D will have to establish a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly.

. The ratio of Kingston [1994] is as follows:

A man is not responsible if his involuntary intoxication is the result of a stratagem or fraud of another.

If an intoxicant, surreptitiously administered, causes D to form an intent that he would not otherwise have formed, the operative fault is not his.

The court is not concerned with moral fault but with the criminality or mental element of the relevant offence.

If involuntarily drunk by the surreptitious administration of drugs, D is not morally to blame for the consequences.

. D is charged with murder and claims that he mistakenly acted in self-defence. At the time of the offence, he had consumed several pints of beer. Which of the following represents the law:

A drunken mistake in self-defence due to voluntary intoxication is no defence to either basic or specific intent crimes.

A drunken mistake in self-defence is a partial defence to a crime of specific intent.

D will be judged on the facts as he mistakenly believed them to be.

The question of mistake is not separate from MR.

Quiz Content