2.8 Defences Flashcards
What are 3 capacity defences
Insanity
Automatism
Intoxication
Capacity defence: Insanity
What are the rules of insanity
M’Naghten rules:
- Labouring under defect of reason
- Arising from a disease of the mind
- Did not know the nature and quality fo the act
- Or if he did know it, then he did not know what he was doing was wrong
Capacity defence: Insanity
Case highliting the M’Nghten rules
R v Hennessy (1989)
Capacity defence: Insanity
Facts of R v Hennessy (1989)
D had not taken his insulin for 3 days, he was a diabetic, he was in an emotional state as his wife had left him and he stole a car.
Capacity defence: Insanity
Held in R v Hennessy (1989)
Judge raised defence of insanity on his behalf as he had ‘disease of mind’ stemming from an internal source (diabetes).
Capacity defence: Insanity
Under a murder charge what would happen if defence of insanity is successfully pleaded
Sentence is indefinate hospitalisation
Capacity defence: Insanity
Under any other charge what 3 things could happen if defence of insanity is successfully pleaded
Absolute discharge
Hospital order
Supervision order
Capacity defence: Insanity
What are some reform proposals the Law Commission published for the insanity defence
- To term a person with a disability like diabetes and epilepsy as ‘insane’ seems arbritrary and outdated
- There is a mismatch between modern psychiatry and the legal definition
Capacity defence: Automatism
Define automatism
an act done by the person without control of the mind - like a muscle spasm - or an act done by a person who is not conscious
Capacity defence: Automatism
What are the requirements for automatism
There must be an external factor - like slipping on ice
There must be a total loss of control
Capacity defence: Automatism
outline the rules of self-induced automatism
defence will not be successful if D knows action will bring about automatic state - intoxication -
- still a defence for specific intent crimes
exception if D does not realise actions will cause self-induced automatism and they aren’t reckless
Capacity defence: Automatism
Case outliniing rules of automatism
R v T (1990)
Capacity defence: Automatism
Facts of R v T (1990)
D took part in a robbery three days after being raped. She pleaded defence of automatism as she suffered PTSD caused by external factor
Capacity defence: Automatism
Held in R v T (1990)
Rape constituted an external factor giving rise to defence of automatism
Capacity defence: Intoxication
What are the 2 types of intoxication
Voluntary and non voluntary
Capacity defence: Voluntary intoxication
Define this defence
D chooses to take substance known to cause intoxication.
Capacity defence: Voluntary intoxication
Specific intent crimes and intoxication
If D is so intoxicated that they are incapable of forming the mens rea they have a complete defence
Capacity defence: Voluntary intoxication
Basic intent crimes and intoxication
Where recklessness is suficient to prove mens rea, this defence will not work as becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless behaviour
Capacity defence: Involuntary intoxication
Describe involuntary intoxication
D was unaware they were taking intoxicating substance, (thinsg like perscribes drigs may have unexpected effects)
While involuntary intoxicated…
- D formed mens rea, they may be guilty
- D did not form mens rea, not guilty
What are the 3 necessity defences
Self defence
Duress by threat
Duress by circumstances
Necessity defences: Self defence
Describe self defence
It is a complete defence for all crimes
Definition: using reasonable force to defend oneself
Necessity defences: Self defence
What are the rules to self defence
- Must be necessary to use some force
- Degree of force must be reasonable
Necessity defences: Self defence
Describe ‘must be necessary to use some force’
subjective test based on D’s genuine belief
Pre-emtive strike is allowed as D can prepare for an attack, no duty to retreat
Necessity defences: Self defence
Describe ‘degree of force must be reasonable’
situation must be assessed by what the D honestly and instrinctly thought was reasonable - objective test
Necessity defences: Duress by threats
definition
D is forced to commit a crime due to direct threat.
person’s will has been overcome by threat, if they weren’t threatened they would have never committed the crime
Necessity defences: Duress by threats
What are the rules to duress by threats
must be threat of death or serious injury
threat can include the D, a close family member or someone who the D is responsible for
Necessity defences: Duress by threats
What is the 2 part Graham test that must be satisfied to claim this defence
- Was the D compelled to act because they believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury
- Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics, have acted the same
Necessity defences: Duress by threats
What circumstance would this defence not work
If there is a safe venue for escape and the D does not persue it
If D associates himself with people who are known to make threats (like criminal gangs)
Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances
Definition
D was forced to react due to the circumstances they found themselves in
Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances
2 part Martin test
- from an objective pov, accused acted reasonably to avoid a threat of death or serious harm
- same 2 part graham test applies
Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances
Case outlining this defence
DPP v Davis (1994)
Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances
Facts of DPP v Davies (1994)
D drove while intoxicated to avoid being attacked
Necessity defences: Duressof circumstances
Held in DPP v Davies (1994)
Convictions were quashed. Duress of circumstances was available
