9. Criminal Capacity and Defences Flashcards
Under what age are children not criminally culpable?
Under ten
What is the test for whether a defendant is fit to plead?
Of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of proceedings in the trial as to:
- Make a proper defence
- Challenge a juror to whom they may wish to object, and
- Comprehend details of evidence
Where a defendant is not fit to plead, what will the court do?
Decide whether they committed the crime on the actus reus alone
What are the options for the court regarding a defendant deemed to have committed the actus reus but who is otherwise unfit to plead?
- Send to hospital for a set period
- Supervision order
- Absolute discharge
When a defendant charged with murder is unfit to plead, what is the court obliged to do?
Send the defendant to hospital for an indefinite period
Regarding intoxication, what does the law draw a line between?
Voluntary and involuntary intoxication
What have the courts held when a defendant becomes intoxicated through no fault of their own?
They may not be able to form the mental state required for the offence
When will involuntary intoxication not be available, and what facts will be a tip off to this?
Not available where the intent was not formed by the intoxicated state, but rather their desires and tendencies toward the behaviour
Is involuntary intoxication available where the defendant underestimates the strength of their own drink?
No
However, what occurs where the intoxication is part voluntary and part involuntary, i.e. defendant was drinking but was also spiked?
The court will consider the effect of each aspect on the conduct
When considering voluntary intoxication, what are the two things the court will consider?
- Whether the drug was dangerous or non-dangerous,
- And, if dangerous, whether the offence was basic intent or specific intent
Will voluntary intoxication by a non-dangerous substance negate mens rea?
Only if D did not form the relevant MR
- intoxicated intent is still intent
Will voluntary intoxication by a dangerous substance negate mens rea?
Only if the offence is one of specific intent
In what specific intent situation will a voluntarily intoxicated person still be guilty?
Where they become intoxicated only to gain the courage to commit the offence
In the context of basic intent offences, what is an exception to general rule that a defendant cannot be absolved from liability for a mistake induced via voluntary intoxication (non-dangerous substance) ?
criminal damage - Jaggard v Dickinson
Why is intoxication not a defence to strict liability offences?
Because strict liability offences have no mens rea requirement
For self-defence to be available, what three things must the defendant be acting to protect, or what other two things must they be trying to do?
Protect:
1. Self
2. Another, or
3. Property
or
- Prevent crime, or
- Effect lawful arrest
Will a defendant be precluded from relying on self-defence where his belief as to whether force was ‘reasonably necessary’ was induced by voluntary intoxication?
Yes (R v O’Grady)
To rely on self-defence, what must the defendant subjectively believe?
That force is immediately required
What two-limbed test is considered when assessing whether D’s use of ‘force’ amounts to self-defence ?
Force must be:
1) necessary (subjective) - based on facts as D believed them to be;
AND
2) reasonable (objective/subjective)
- jury must consider whether force was ‘proportionate’ based on facts as the defendant believed them to be at the time?
For self-defence, how should the jury approach the relationship between ‘necessity’ and ‘reasonableness’ ?
An act considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action is always reasonable (R v Clegg)
- need to assess each requirement independently of each other
Regarding the amount of force used, what is the standard where the defendant is a householder acting against an intruder who has entered their home?
The householder may use any force as long as it is not grossly or unreasonably disproportionate
In determining what is grossly or unreasonably disproportionate, what will the court consider?
Decisions that were made in the heat of the moment
In addition to being in their dwelling, what are the two other criteria the defendant must satisfy to rely on the householder exception?
Defendant must:
1. Not be a trespasser, and
2. Believe that the victim is a trespasser
When considering whether force was ‘necessary’, what are five key principles to remember in assessing whether D held an ‘honest’ belief?
1) Pre-emptive strike does not rule out defence
2) No legal duty to retreat
3) Threat must be immediate and imminent
4) D may still plead self-defence, even where he instigated the initial attack.
5) Key question is whether D’s belief was ‘honest’ ≠ reasonable
What are the four conditions that must be satisfied to rely on self-defence in householder cases?
1) Must be a householder
2) Force must be used while in/partly in a dwelling (≠ include garden)
3) D must honestly believe that V is a trespasser; AND
4) Force must be:
(i) necessary - same test as regular self-defence; and
(ii) not grossly disproportionate (objective)
In householder cases, what two-step inquiry must the jury undertake when assessing whether a defendant’s use of force was ‘grossly disproportionate’?
Standard offers more-leeway to householders than regular self-defence cases.
R v Ray
1) Was the degree of force grossly disproportionate’ in the circumstances as D believed them to be?; AND
2) If not, was it reasonable, notwithstanding being possibly disproportionate?
Can you rely on the householder standard of self-defence if you drag a burglar outside your home, and then use force in a subsequent altercation?
NO - no longer in property!
