Chapter 11 key cases (General defences)

Question 1

R v Williams (Gladstone) (1983)?

Answer 1

• Defendant was on a bus when he thought he saw a man assaulting youth.
• The man was however arresting the youth for mugging an old lady.
• Defendant got of the bus and asked what was going on, the man told him he was a police officer but could not provide proof.
• There was a struggle in which the man was injured.
• The court quashed the defendants conviction.

Question 2

R v Bird (1986)?

Answer 2

• The defendants ex boyfriend turned up at her birthday party with his new girlfriend.
• There was an argument and he was asked to leave.
• He did but returned where there was another argument which resulted him in being injured.
• The defendant argued she was acting in self-defence.
• Her conviction was quashed because the court ruled that while withdrawing or showing an unwillingness to fight is good evidence that the defendant is acting reasonably.

Question 3

R v Rashford (2005)?

Answer 3

• The defendant sought out the victim, intending to attack him in revenge for an earlier dispute.
• But the victim and his friends acted way out of proportion to the defendants aggression.
• The defence was successful.

Question 4

R v Clegg (1995)?

Answer 4

• The defendant was a soldier on duty at a checkpoint.
• A car came at speed with its headlights on.
• One soul diner shouted for it to stop but it did not.
• The defendant fired 3 shots at the windscreen of the car and one as it passed.
• The final shot hit the passenger in the back and killed her.
• As the evidence showed that the shot was fired once the car gone past he couldn’t use the defence of self-defence.
• This is because the threat of the car has gone.

Question 5

R v Martin (2002)?

Answer 5

• Two burglars broke into the defendants isolated farmhouse.
• He fired several shots at them; one of the intruders died and the others suffered serious injuries.
• The defendant claimed he had shot them in self-defence but evidence showed it occurred while they were leaving.
• So defence was not effective.

Question 6

R v Ray (2017)?

Answer 6

• The defendant and the victims former partner were in a relationship and spending time the former shared home.
• During a fight, the defendant feared a knife was going to be used against him and fatally stabbed him.
• The defence failed.

Question 7

R v Williams (2020)?

Answer 7

• The victim stabbed the victim and took a necklace from him at a party.
• The victim ran away but was chased by a group led by the defendant.
• They caught up with the victim and fatally stabbed him.
• Self-defence was not available here.

Question 8

R v Gotts (1992)?

Answer 8

• The defendant, a 16 year old boy, tried to kill his mother by stabbed her and said he was forced to do so by his father.
• Gotts caused serious injury but his mother survived.
• He was charged with attempted murder and was not permitted to use the defence of duress for such an offence.

Question 9

R v Hasan (2005)?

Answer 9

• The defendant worked for a woman who ran an agency involving prostitution.
• He would drive women to clients.
• The woman had a new boyfriend who was a violent drug dealer and boasted about killing people to the defendant, he also took over much of the defendants work.
• The boyfriend and another man ambushed the defendant outside his house.
• The defendant was told to commit a burglary of the home of one the woman’s clients, or serious harm would be done to him.
• He complied and and was convicted of burglary, but his defence of duress was rejected.

Question 10

R v Bowen (1996)?

Answer 10

• The defendant had a low IQ of 68.
• He obtained goods by deception for two men who told him they would petrol bomb him and his family unless he carried out this offence.
• It was held that his low IQ was irrelevant in deciding whether the defendant found it difficult to resist any threats, so the defence failed.

Question 11

R v Gill (1963)?

Answer 11

• The defendant claimed he and his wife had been threatened unless he stole a lorry.
• However, there was a bit of time where he was left alone and didn’t report the alarm.
• He could not rely of the defence of duress.

Question 12

R v Shepherd (1987)?

Answer 12

• The defendant joined a shoplifting gang, but was threatened with violence when he tried to leave.
• He did not know this was likely when he decided to leave, so future shoplifting could now have the defence available, but not offences committed before he was aware of the threat of violence.

Question 13

R v Willer (1986)?

Answer 13

The defendant and a passenger were driving down a narrow alley when their car was surrounded by a gang of youths who threatened them.
- He realised the only way of getting away was driving on the pavement.
- The court of appeal allowed his reckless driving because because he was under greater threat.

Question 14

R v Conway (1988)?

Answer 14

• A passenger in the defendants car had been shot by two men a few weeks earlier.
• The passenger saw two men running towards the stationary car, so he told the defendant to drive away and he did really fast.
• He was charged with reckless driving.

Question 15

R v Martin (1989)?

Answer 15

• The defendants wife became hysterical and threatened suicide unless he drove her son to work.
• The defendant had been disqualified from driving but he eventually drove the boy to work.
• He was convicted of driving while being disqualified.

Question 16

R v Pommell (1995)?

Answer 16

• The defendant was found by police lying with a loaded gun.
• He told the police, that earlier, he took it from someone who was gonna use it to cause ‘serious damage’.
• He said he intended to get his brother to hand it in to the police, but was denied to put the opportunity to put the defence to the jury.
• His conviction was quashed and the case was sent for retrial.

Question 17

R v Cairns (1999)?

Answer 17

• The victim threw himself on the bonnet and windscreen of the defendants car.
• Several of the victims friends were around and shouting so the defendant felt threatened.
• He drove off with the victim on his bonnet and injured some of the victims friend.
• These friends were trying to help not threaten.
• The victim also was severely injured.
• The defendants conviction was quashed as he reasonably perceived a threat of serious physical injury or death.

Question 18

R v Donovan (1934)?

Answer 18

• The defendant caned a 17 year old girl for the purpose of sexual gratification.
• This caused bruising and he was convicted of indecent assault and a common assault.
• The defendant appealed on the basis that the victim had consented to the act, his conviction was quashed.

Question 19

R v Slingsby (1995)?

Answer 19

• The defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter by an unlawful act.
• He and the victim had taken part in sexual activity which was consented.
• During this, a signet ring which he was wearing caused small cuts to the victim which led to blood poisoning from which she died.
• There was no battery so he was held not guilty.

Question 20

R v Tabassum (2000)?

Answer 20

• The defendant pretended to be medically qualified so as to obtain the oppertunity to examine women’s breasts.
• He appealed against his conviction for indecent assault, saying that the complainants had consented to the examinations.
• However, the consent was misleading as they thought he was a qualified doctor.

Question 21

R v Barnes (2004)?

Answer 21

• The defendant had inflicted a serious leg injury upon the victim while attempting to make slide tackle.
• He accepted the tackle and said it was fair.
• The court stated that contact in sports are exceptions.