5.1+6.1 general defences to a crime Flashcards
defences to a crime
a justification or lawful ‘reason’ given by an accused person as to why they are not guilty of a criminal offence
self defence
- believed that their actions were necessary
to protect or defend themselves, and - perceived their actions to be a reasonable
response in the circumstances. - once an accused raises self defence the prosecution must prove BRD that it wasnt self defence
mental impairment
a condition of the mind that impacts on a persons ability to know the nature and quality of their conduct or that their conduct was wrong
areas of mental impairment
- did not know what they were doing because they had little understanding of the nature and quality
of their actions, and - did not know their conduct was wrong or could not reason, or think about, their conduct like
an ordinary person.
what is characteristic of mental impairment
an accused is presumed sane unless it can be proven otherwise. this means that the burden of proof in proving the existence of mental impairment falls on the party who raises it
what happens if mental impairment is successfully argued
there is a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment- impose a secure treatment order that allows compulsory detainment to receive treatment at a mental health service
duress
strong mental pressure on someone to overcome their independent will
and force them to do something
an accused may use duress if there is reasonable belief that:
- a threat of harm existed
- the threat would have been carried out unless the offence was committed
- committing the offence was the only reasonable way to avoid the threatened harm, and * their conduct was a reasonable response to the threat.
once the defence raises duress who has the burden of proof
the prosecution will hold the burden of proving BRD that the accused didn’t act under duresss
sudden or extraordinary emergency
- there was a sudden or extraordinary emergency
- their actions were the only reasonable way of dealing with the situation, and
- their actions were a reasonable response to the situation.
once the accused raises the defence of a sudden or extraordinary emergency, the burden of proof will fall on the prosecution to prove BRD that the accused didn’t act in the circumstances of a sudden or extraordinary emergency
automatism
a state in which a person has a total loss of control over their bodily movements
(i.e. is not conscious or aware of what they are doing), so that they cannot form an intention to commit a crime
what are some conditions that constitute to automatism
- while sleeping or sleepwalking
- while suffering concussion
- during an epileptic seizure, or
- as a result of a medical condition or because of a side
effect of the proper use of medication.
burden of proof for automatism
varies according to the cause of automatism but in general the pros must prove BRD that the accused acted voluntarily
intoxication
may use intoxication if at the time of the offence they acted involuntarily or without intent due to being intoxicated due to consuming drugs, alcohol or other
to successfully argue intoxication they must not be self induced
accident
with the exception of strict liability offences for an accused to be found guilty they must have a mens rea meaning the prosecution must prove BRD that their actions were deliberate and intentional
accidents would apply if the actions were involuntary, unintentional, reasonably unforeseeable by an ordinary person
