Discuss any criminal offences which may have been committed by Andrew and any defenses which may be available thereto.
Possible answer.
There are two possible offences that Andrew may have committed. Assault contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 and Rape contrary to the Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Although the scenario does not indicate whether or not Bella consented to the intercourse, one is left to infer that because of Bella's earlier resistance to Andrew's entry into her room the possibility of rape is worthy of mention. He did assault her by pushing her on the bed and also causing her to to fear that she would have been assaulted when he entered the bedroom. However, Andrew might be tempted to raise the defense of automatism based on what Lord denning said in Bratty 1961,
There are two possible offences that Andrew may have committed. Assault contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1988 and Rape contrary to the Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Although the scenario does not indicate whether or not Bella consented to the intercourse, one is left to infer that because of Bella's earlier resistance to Andrew's entry into her room the possibility of rape is worthy of mention. He did assault her by pushing her on the bed and also causing her to to fear that she would have been assaulted when he entered the bedroom. However, Andrew might be tempted to raise the defense of automatism based on what Lord denning said in Bratty 1961,
"No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context - some people nowadays prefer to speak of it as 'automatism' - means an act which is done … whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking"
Lord Denning's words have definitely created a stir in establishing whether or not simple automatism can be used as a defense to sleep walking. This has been very difficult to establish in practice.
The insanity test under the Mcnaghten Rule dictates that if "at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a 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 " then this person would be be rendered a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity"
Andrew had been on a long flight which placed a considerable amount of stress on his body or result in desynchronosis, a condition informally known as "Jet lagged". In R v Quick where it was found that the insulin cause the hypoglycemia the defendant was acquitted. This external trigger brought about his internal condition and thus should not be considered insane. For non-insane automatism one must have had an external trigger. While some may be tempted to call jet lagged an external trigger it causes stress on the body. in Rabey it was said "Any malfunctioning of the mind or mental disorder having its source primarily in some subjective condition or weakness internal to the accused (whether fully understood or not) may be a 'disease of the mind' if it prevents the accused from knowing what he is doing, but transient disturbances of consciousness due to certain specific external factors do not fall within the concept of disease of the mind . . . In my view, the ordinary stresses and disappointments of life which are the common lot of mankind do not constitute an external cause constituting an explanation for a malfunctioning of the mind which takes it out of the category of a 'disease of the mind.' To hold otherwise would deprive the concept of an external factor of any real meaning." Thus there is little case law to support that a sleepwalking condition would result in outright acquittal. In Burgess 1987 the defendant was sleepwalking when he hit his friend with a video recorder. He received a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and that's most likely the verdict that Andrew would receive.
Lord Denning's words have definitely created a stir in establishing whether or not simple automatism can be used as a defense to sleep walking. This has been very difficult to establish in practice.
The insanity test under the Mcnaghten Rule dictates that if "at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a 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 " then this person would be be rendered a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity"
Andrew had been on a long flight which placed a considerable amount of stress on his body or result in desynchronosis, a condition informally known as "Jet lagged". In R v Quick where it was found that the insulin cause the hypoglycemia the defendant was acquitted. This external trigger brought about his internal condition and thus should not be considered insane. For non-insane automatism one must have had an external trigger. While some may be tempted to call jet lagged an external trigger it causes stress on the body. in Rabey it was said "Any malfunctioning of the mind or mental disorder having its source primarily in some subjective condition or weakness internal to the accused (whether fully understood or not) may be a 'disease of the mind' if it prevents the accused from knowing what he is doing, but transient disturbances of consciousness due to certain specific external factors do not fall within the concept of disease of the mind . . . In my view, the ordinary stresses and disappointments of life which are the common lot of mankind do not constitute an external cause constituting an explanation for a malfunctioning of the mind which takes it out of the category of a 'disease of the mind.' To hold otherwise would deprive the concept of an external factor of any real meaning." Thus there is little case law to support that a sleepwalking condition would result in outright acquittal. In Burgess 1987 the defendant was sleepwalking when he hit his friend with a video recorder. He received a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and that's most likely the verdict that Andrew would receive.
No comments:
Post a Comment