Case Law: General Defences Flashcards
Hill vs Baxter (1958)
About: Automatism
Facts: The defendant was charged with dangerous driving but claimed to have no memory of (starting before the incident and ending after). He argued he was suddenly taken ill, not conscious and therefore could not be considered guilty of dangerous driving. The charges were dismissed as it was accepted that he was ‘unconscious’ at the time.
Issue: The prosecution appealed that in accepting the defendants series of events, they are accepting a defence of automation and this is not the case here as there is no evidence the defendant was suffering from a ‘blackout’.
Findings: As dangerous driving was an offence of strict liability, a denial of the requisite mens rea is not enough for the defendant to be not guilty. He would therefore need to rely on the defence of automation and the fact his actions were involuntary. However, owing to the fact his account was very similar to the fact he had fallen asleep (something he has control over) and that he had driven a considerable distance without incident (demonstrating skill) this showed he had some control. The case was referred back to the judge who found him guilty.
DPP vs Majewski (1977)
About: Intoxication in crimes of basic intent
Facts: The defendant had taken a considerable amount of drugs over a 48 hour period. He went to a pub where he consumed alcohol, before assaulting two men. The police were called and he assaulted four officers over the next few hours including a Police Inspector in the morning. He was charged with various assaults.
Issue: The defendant argued that he had no recollection of the events and therefore could not be convicted as he lacked the mens rea.
Findings: Appeal was dismissed, as the crime of assault is one of basic intent the defendant could still form the basic mens rea when inebriated. Therefore a defendant may be able to show voluntary intoxication affected them forming the mens rea for a crime of SPECIFIC INTENT (murder) they could not rely on it for offences of basic intent.
R v Allen (1998)
About: Involuntary Intoxication
Facts: The defendant consumed a large amount of homemade wine which had a far greater affect on him than anticipated and was extremely drunk. He committed a sexual assault whilst inebriated.
Issue: That the wine he consumed was much stronger than he expected and therefore it had not been voluntary intoxication. Owing to this he could not be responsible for his action.
Findings: That by simply misjudging the strength or anticipated effect of intoxicants does not qualify as involuntary intoxication. Furthermore, sexual assault is a crime of basic intent, therefore, he would be unable to rely on his drunkenness to negate mens rea.
Jaggard v Dickinson (1981)
About: Defence of mistake
Facts: The defendant was staying at a friends house and could use it as they wished. She went out, got very drunk and on returning attempted to gain access to an identical property on the street. After being denied access by the occupier she broke a window and was charged with criminal damage. The defendants defence was simply she was mistaken owing to her drunkenness and her friend would have given consent for the damage if it was her house.
Issue: Can the defendant rely on the defence of mistake when intoxicated voluntarily?
Findings: The appeal succeeded, the defendant could rely on the defence of mistake in the circumstances as she believed that she would have the consent of the person that owned the property, she had a lawful excuse for what she had done.
R v O’Grady (1987)
About: Drunken Mistake
Facts: The defendant was an alcoholic and spent the day drinking lots of alcohol. They went back to the defendant’s house and went to sleep. The defendant was woken by one of the males he was drinking with, who was hitting him on the head. The defendant picked up some broken glass and hit him a few times with it. They had a fight and the defendant was bettered. The fight calmed down and the defendant cooked them some food and went to sleep. When the defendant awoke his friend was dead and had 20 wounds to his face and other serious injuries. He was convicted of manslaughter.
Issue: Did the defendant use self-defence and as such can use his voluntary intoxication in relation to the excessive force used?
Findings: Drunken mistake cannot be used to support a plea of self-defence in relation to the mistaken belief of the level of force used as this mistake was induced by voluntary intoxication. In this scenario where the crime of murder (one of specific intent) requires an intent to kill, the defendant had been charged with manslaughter. The court had to balance two interests, that the defendant should be free to defend himself but also protect others from drunken mistake.
M’Naghten (1843)
About: Insanity
Facts: M’Naghten attempted to kill the Prime Minister but instead killed Edward Drummond, the Prime Minister’s secretary. M’Naghten was suffering from insane delusions at the time of the killing.
Issue: How do we determine whether a person should escape criminal liability on the basis of being insane?
Findings: Lord Tindal CJ wrote “in all cases of this kind the juror ought to be told that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary to be proved to their satisfaction: and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not know that what he was doing was wrong.
R v Lee (2000)
About: Mistake
Facts: Lee was required to take a breath test as he was suspected of drink driving. He looked at the test result which showed an air bubble has pushed it over the limit. When the officer tried to arrest him for drink driving, Lee resisted as he believed the arrest was unlawful. This belief was said to be genuine.
Issue: Does Lee’s genuine belief that he was subject of an unlawful arrest allow a defence?
Findings: The conviction for assault was upheld. The mistake was one of law therefore there was no defence.
R v Heath (2000)
About: Duress
Facts: Heath was a drug user who had fallen into debt with a dealer. He was instructed to take 98 kilos of Cannabis from Lincolnshire to Bristol. He was caught and pleaded duress, stating that he had been victim of intimidation and violence if he had not done as asked.
Issue: Does Heath have a defence as he was intimidated?
Findings: No, he does not. The reason being is that he had numerous points that he could have broken off the journey and gone to the police or he could have fled and gone to his family in Scotland. The question to be asked i whether the person has reasonable time to negate the threat (such as get help).
R v Howe (1987)
About: Duress in Murder
Facts: Howe and another were acting under the orders of a third person. The first murder related to a 17-year-old who was tortured and murdered. Howe was forced to be involved in the assault otherwise he was threatened the same would happen to him. The following night another murder was committed by the three and a third male escaped.
Issue: Does Howe have a defence for murder and attempted murder as he states he was under duress to carry out the acts otherwise the same would happen to him?
Findings: The defence of duress is not available for murder or attempted murder.
R v Sharp (1987)
About: Duress
Facts: The defendant joined a gang known for armed offences. He wanted to leave but was threatened with serious violence. He took part in a robbery of a post office where the manager was killed. He was convicted of murder.
Issue: Does Heath have a defence as he wanted to leave but couldn’t?
Findings: No he doesn’t. Lord Lane CJ said, “where a person voluntarily and with knowledge of its nature joined a criminal organisation which he knew might bring pressure on him to omit an offence, and was an active member when was put under such pressure, he cannot avail himself of the defence of duress.
R v Martin (1989)
About: Duress of Circumstances
Facts: The defendant drove whilst disqualified as his wife had threatened to commit suicide if he did not drive their son to work. His wife had previously attempted suicide therefore he believed her threats.
Issue: Does Martin have a defence as he was forced to drive in the circumstances?
Findings: yes he does. In these circumstances, it was held that the defendant’s behaviour was reasonable.
