9. Defences Flashcards
Is intoxication ever a defence?
YES
- If it means the defendant lacks the MR of the offence (less of a defence here)
NO
- if the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated
Crimes of Specific Intent
Part of the MR is intention (recklessness does not suffice)
Offences of basic intent
the MR can be fulfilled with something less than intent (like recklessness) as is the case with assaults
Are sexual offences crimes of specific or basic intent
For the purposes of the defence of intoxication they are treated as crimes of basic intent
Specific Intent Crimes Examples
Murder
s 18 assault
Theft
Voluntary intoxication and a crime of basic intent: can intoxication be a defence
Never
Voluntary intoxication and a crime of specific intent: is intoxication a defence
Yes, if it causes the defendant to lack the MR (of intention) but this will not preclude the court from convicting them with a lesser offence (like manslaughter)
What amounts to involuntary intoxication
- if the defendant is spiked
- if the defendant takes medication they are assured is harmless (they will not be reckless) here)
For what crimes can involuntary intoxication provide a defence for?
Crimes of basic and specific intent IF the defendant lacks the MR because of this intoxication (does not work if defendant ‘knows what they are doing’)
What is ‘Dutch courage’
When the defendant deliberately consumes alcohol or drugs to gain the confidence to commit an offence
- cannot rely on this as a defence
If a defendant makes a ‘mistake’ because they are intoxicated (ie. thinks they are about to be attacked) is this a defence?
No, if the mistake is caused by the intoxication this is not a defence
Intoxication and lawful excuse: does the defence apply here?
If the belief in the excuse is genuinely held, the intoxication is irrelevant so lawful excuse may provide a defence but it will not rid them of the MR
The defence of self defence in statute
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected
offenders or of persons unlawfully at large
Legal and Evidential burden for self-defence
- D must discharge evidential burden by cross-examining prosecution witness and defendant giving evidence themselves
- Now, CPS must disprove this defence beyond a reasonable doubt
When will force be deemed as ‘necessary’ wrt to self defence
- if it was necessary to defend themselves or another or prevent a criminal offence
Self-defence and mistaken belief - would this mistaken belief prevent D from relying on the defence?
No, if the belief in the necessity of the force was genuinely held
Is the test for whether force was necessary subjective or objective
a. defendant is judged on facts as they believed them to be
b. BUT if the defendant’s belief was unreasonably held, the jury may conclude that they do not believe that the belief was HONESTLY held by the defendant
Whether the amount of force used was reasonable: is this decided objectively or subjectively
The test for reasonableness is objective - decided by magistrates or jury - with reference to the facts that the defendant believed
Two components of establishing the defence of self defence
- D honestly believed that force was necessary
- D used reasonable force in the circumstances as they believed them to be
BUT reasonableness of that belief is relevant to the question of whether it was genuinely held
When is the amount of force considered ‘unreasonable’
If the amount of force was disproportionate in the circumstances
What characteristics are relevant (and which are not) when assessing the ‘reasonableness’ of the force used in self defence
- Physical characteristics (eg. strength, age, and build)
- Psychological characteristics like conditions are NOT relevant
Is ‘whether the amount of force used was reasonable’ applied equally across all self-defence claims?
No, households have greater leeway, and force will be reasonable so long as it is not GROSSLY disproportionate
Definition of a Householder Case
Case where defendant uses force in self-defence or in the defence of another while in or partly in:
- a building or part of a building that is a dwelling
- forces accommodation or
- a vehicle or vessel that is a dwelling
Must the defendant be a ‘homeowner’ for it to be a ‘householder case’?
No, they just cannot be a trespasser and must be in or partly in a dwelling
If the defendant could have retreated before resorting to force - will this be considered in self-defence claims?
It may be taken into account if they could have, but is not a requirement
What allowances are made for those acting ‘in the heat of the moment’
The court will consider (when assessing reasonableness of the response) that
- a person acting for a legitimate purpose (self-defence) may not be able to weigh up to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action
- evidence that a person did what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary will be strong evidence that they were acting reasonably
Self-Defence: Must a defendant wait until they are attacked to ‘fight back’ under this defence
No, if they honestly believed the use of force was necessary to ward off an attack
- danger will need to be sufficiently specific or imminent here
Automatism
A rare criminal defense that can be used when a defendant’s mental state is in question. It can be used to argue that the defendant lacked voluntariness, culpability, or was otherwise excused. There are two types of automatism as a legal defense: sane automatism, which includes sleepwalking, fainting, and hypoglycemic attacks, and insane automatism, which includes schizophrenia and other mental diseases.
Possible defence available to a diabetic suffering hyperglycaemia:
Insanity
Medical conditions raised as grounds for insanity include diabetes when caused by hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar level) but not hypoglycaemia (low blood-sugar level), as this is caused by an external factor. The possible defence available here to a diabetic suffering hyperglycaemia is insanity.
Intoxication, Self-defence, and mistake in need for force
For the defence of self-defence to succeed the defendant must use reasonable force in the circumstances. He may be judged based on his honest, albeit mistaken belief as to the circumstances - R v Williams (Gladstone) [1984]. However, where the mistaken belief in the circumstances and the need to defend himself is due to his voluntary intoxication the defence of self-defence must fail - R v O’Grady [1987].
If an individual suffers from a psychiatric condition - will this be taken into account when determining whether the amount of force used in self-defence was reasonable?
No
- but may form the basis for a downgrading of offence by virtue of diminished responsibility
Legal Burden of proving diminished responsibility:
On the defendant, for all elements
Legal and Factual Causation in Criminal Trials:
Legal: the actions must be a substantial and operating cause of death and no intervening events
Factual: the but for test
