CILEx L3 Criminal Law Principles 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: What is the M'Naghten Rules defence of insanity?
- At the time of the act, the defendant was suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason so as not to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong (Correct answer)
- The defendant was suffering from any mental disorder at the time of the offence
- The defendant was incapable of understanding the court proceedings
- The defendant acted automatically without conscious control
Correct answer: At the time of the act, the defendant was suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason so as not to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong
The M'Naghten Rules (1843) provide a defence where, due to a disease of the mind, the defendant had such a defect of reason that they either did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know that what they were doing was wrong.
Question 2: What is 'automatism' as a defence in criminal law?
- An involuntary act done without conscious control where the mind does not direct the act (Correct answer)
- A defence available to sleepwalkers only
- Acting automatically due to a mental illness
- Any act done without thinking about its consequences
Correct answer: An involuntary act done without conscious control where the mind does not direct the act
Automatism is a complete defence where the defendant's act was wholly involuntary — the mind did not direct the muscular movement. It requires an external cause (such as a blow to the head). Internal causes give rise to the insanity defence instead.
Question 3: What is 'self-defence' and when is it available?
- A complete defence where the defendant used reasonable force to defend themselves, another, or property (Correct answer)
- A partial defence reducing murder to manslaughter
- A defence only available to police officers using force
- A defence requiring the defendant to have no option but to use force
Correct answer: A complete defence where the defendant used reasonable force to defend themselves, another, or property
Self-defence (at common law and s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) is a complete defence where the defendant used force that was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances as they genuinely believed them to be.
Question 4: What is the 'intoxication' defence in criminal law?
- Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to specific intent crimes where it negates the required intent; it is no defence to basic intent crimes (Correct answer)
- Intoxication is always a complete defence if the defendant was very drunk
- Voluntary intoxication provides no defence to any criminal charge
- Involuntary intoxication is never a defence in English law
Correct answer: Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to specific intent crimes where it negates the required intent; it is no defence to basic intent crimes
Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea of specific intent offences (e.g., murder), potentially reducing liability (e.g., to manslaughter). It provides no defence to basic intent offences (DPP v Majewski [1977]).
Question 5: What is 'criminal damage' under the Criminal Damage Act 1971?
- Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse (Correct answer)
- Intentionally causing any damage to property
- Any destruction of property regardless of mens rea
- Damaging property owned by the state or a public body
Correct answer: Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse
S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 criminalises intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another, without lawful excuse.
Question 6: What is the mens rea of 'recklessness' in English criminal law following R v G [2003]?
- Subjective recklessness: the defendant was aware of an unjustifiable risk and took it anyway (Correct answer)
- Objective recklessness: a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk
- Any failure to think about the consequences of one's actions
- Awareness that harm was likely but continuing regardless
Correct answer: Subjective recklessness: the defendant was aware of an unjustifiable risk and took it anyway
Following R v G [2003] (which overruled Caldwell), recklessness is subjective: the defendant must be personally aware of an unjustifiable risk and go on to take it. Purely objective recklessness (Caldwell) was abolished.
CILEx L3 Criminal Law Principles 3
What is the M'Naghten Rules defence of insanity?