Essay Plan: "The criminal law’s treatment of issues of capacity is one dominated by pragmatism, not principle."

Essay Plan: "The criminal law’s treatment of issues of capacity is one dominated by pragmatism, not principle."

Introduction

• Focus: Introduction to how the criminal law deals with issues of capacity, often prioritising pragmatic solutions over principled approaches.

• Thesis: This essay will explore how the criminal law's treatment of capacity reflects a piecemeal and pragmatic approach rather than one rooted in consistent principles.

• Legal Definitions: The law's approach to capacity relies on legal terms rather than psychiatric understanding.

◦ Piecemeal Solutions: Legal definitions are often constructed pragmatically, leading to inconsistencies.

• Key Cases:

◦ McNaughten (1843): Established the legal standard for insanity, focused on the ability to know right from wrong.

◦ R v Coley (2013): Confirmed that voluntary intoxication negates automatism but demonstrates the law's focus on practicality over principle.

◦ R v Windle (1952): The court held that even if a defendant is mentally ill, they can still be convicted if they understand the nature of their act.

◦ Keal (2022): Expanded Windle unnecessarily, further highlighting the pragmatic approach rather than a principled one.

• Critique: The reliance on legal definitions rather than psychiatric ones illustrates how the law prioritises practicality over a consistent, principled approach.

Paragraph 2: Disease of the Mind

• Outdated Principles: The definition of "disease of the mind" is not limited to brain diseases and has led to pragmatic adjustments rather than principled reform.

• Key Cases:

◦ R v Kemp (1957): The court ruled that a condition affecting the mind, even if temporary, could be considered a disease of the mind.

◦ Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) vs. R v Sullivan (1984): Highlighted the inconsistency in how mental conditions are treated.

• Human Rights Concerns:

◦ ECHR and Article 6: The broad and unclear definitions challenge the fairness of trials, potentially violating the right to a fair trial.

◦ Law Commission's Reform Proposals: Suggests a need for a more coherent and principled framework rather than continuing with piecemeal reforms.

• Critique: The law's current approach is outdated and inconsistent, demanding a more principled reform rather than patchwork solutions.

Paragraph 3: Internal vs. External Automatism

• Unprincipled Distinction: The differentiation between internal and external causes in automatism is often arbitrary and unprincipled.

◦ Diabetes Cases:

▪ R v Quick (1973): Acquittal based on external cause (insulin-induced hypoglycemia).

▪ R v Hennessy (1989): Conviction based on internal cause (failure to take insulin).

◦ Psychological Blow Cases: Cases involving psychological blows demonstrate the confusion and inconsistency in applying these principles.

◦ Sleepwalking: Another area where internal and external causes may operate simultaneously, creating further inconsistency.

• Critique:

◦ Conflict with Fair Labelling: The internal/external distinction undermines the principle of fair labelling in criminal law.

◦ Public Safety Concerns: The pragmatic approach risks wrongful acquittals, potentially leading to re-offending, thus endangering public safety.

• Conclusion: The pragmatic but inconsistent treatment of automatism underscores the need for more principled legal standards.

Conclusion

• Summary: The criminal law’s treatment of capacity issues, particularly through its use of pragmatic distinctions and outdated principles, is flawed and inconsistent.

• Final Argument: A shift towards a more principled approach is necessary to ensure fairness, consistency, and public safety in the legal treatment of capacity.

Sample Paragraph:

The law’s treatment of capacity can be discussed through the development of case law pertaining to automatism. The law’s differentiation between internal factors (eg. Mental illness) and an external factors (eg. A blow to the head) demonstrates how the law have tried to set down fair and just principles but have been subject to change, leading to a pragmatic approach, because of the inconsistencies and gaps in the law. The treatment of diabetes issue through the comparison of the Quick 1973 case and the Hennessy 1989 case. The Quick case involved the defendant who suffered from a hypoglycaemic episode (low blood sugar) after injecting insulin which resulted in him attacking the victim. His conviction was quashed on the basis that insulin is an external cause and therefore can be acquitted under the defence of non-insane automatism. However, in Hennessy, the defendant suffered from hyperglycaemic state (high blood sugar) because he failed to take insulin which led to him being convicted for driving a stolen car. He was labelled as insane because the event was triggered by an internal cause. The distinction between internal and external is clearly inadequate because they fail to realise that the two factors may operate simultaneously.