(Crim) General Defences

Question 1

SELF DEFENCE: Types of Self Defence

Answer 1

1. Self-Defence
2. Defence of Property
3. Prevention of Crime

Question 2

SELF DEFENCE: R v Beckford (1988)

Answer 2

Pre-Emptive Strikes:
D, a police officer, killed someone as he feared for his own life. The killing was not unlawful. D perceived the circumstances to which reasonable force was used.

Question 3

SELF DEFENCE: R v Cousins (1982)

Answer 3

Pre-Emptive Strikes:
D thought there was a hit out to kill him. D went to V’s house and told V’s father that he was going to kill V. Circumstances were not reasonable so threat of force was not lawful.

Question 4

SELF DEFENCE: Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1983)

Answer 4

Preparing for an Attack:
D’s shop was attacked during riots. D then made petrol bombs in “Self-Defence”. Was found not guilty as it was reasonable defence of property.

Question 5

SELF DEFENCE: R v Bird (1985)

Answer 5

Duty to Retreat:
D was celebrating her 17th birthday. Ex-Boyfriend showed up and hit her. She retaliated with a glass in her hand causing serious harm. Her conviction was quashed.

Question 6

SELF DEFENCE: R v Martin (2002)

Answer 6

Is the Force Reasonable:
Farmer shot 2 kids. Shot them in the back. Sought to rely on self-defence however the defence failed.

Question 7

SELF DEFENCE: R v Clegg (1995)

Answer 7

Excessive Force:
D was a soldier. Stolen car drove through a checkpoint. D mistook the car for one being drove by terrorists. After the car passed, D fired 4 shots and killed a passenger. After the car passed, the threat had gone. Self-Defence not available.

Question 8

SELF DEFENCE: R v Williams (Gladstone) (1984)

Answer 8

Mistaken Self-Defence:
V saw another man (R) trying to rob a woman and chased after him. D mistook V as attacking R in the street. V lied and told D he was a policeman. V punched him. Jury said the mistake was honest and reasonable.

Question 9

SELF DEFENCE: R v O’Grady (1987)

Answer 9

Intoxication & Self-Defence:
D was drinking and fell asleep. D woke up to V hitting him so D retaliated and fell back asleep when D woke up his friend was dead. Mistake due to voluntary intoxication cannot form the basis to a defence. His conviction was upheld.

Question 10

DURESS: R v Howe (1987)

Answer 10

Murder & Attempted Murder:
D (aged 19) killed and tortured 2 men as he was told that he would be killed if he didn’t. Duress not available for murder.

Question 11

DURESS: R v Gotts (1991)

Answer 11

D (a 16 year old boy) was ordered by his father to kill his mother or else the father would shoot him. He stabbed his mother and the courts charged him with attempted murder. Duress not allowed.

Question 12

DURESS: R v Graham (1982)

Answer 12

Duress by Threats:
D and his lover killed D’s wife. D was suffering from anxiety and claimed that his lover threatened him. His prescribed Valium would have made him more susceptible to threats. Conviction was upheld. Defence not allowed.

Question 13

DURESS: R v Valderrama-Vega (1985)

Answer 13

Seriousness of Threats:
D was caught smuggling cocaine from Colombia. He said that the gang had threatened his family and also threatened to out him as a homosexual. Courts ruled that only the threats to the family were sufficient.

Question 14

DURESS: R v Gill (1963)

Answer 14

Unavoidable and Imminent threat:
D claimed that he and his wife were threatened if he did not steal a lorry. CoA stated that there was a period of time where he could’ve gone to the police or told someone.

Question 15

DURESS: R v Hasan (2005)

Answer 15

Self-Induced Duress:
D was the driver for a prostitute whose boyfriend threatened him with violence if he did not commit a burglary. D was caught and tried to use duress. HoL didn’t allow the defence as he associated himself with criminals.

Question 16

DURESS: R v Cole (1994)

Answer 16

Specified Crime:
D borrowed some money from a loan shark and loan shark threatened D if he did not repay him. D robbed several people to repay. Courts rejected the defence of duress and the loan shark did not tell him to rob anybody.

Question 17

DURESS: R v Cairns (1999)

Answer 17

Mistake:
D was driving and a group of youths surrounded the car and one of them threw himself on the bonnet. Believing that he was in danger D fled. Duress was accepted as D needed only to show a reasonable and genuine perception of a threat of serious violence.

Question 18

DURESS: R v Flatt (1996)

Answer 18

Characteristics:
D was a drug addict who was in debt to his supplier. His supplier told him to look after some drugs at D’s house or else he would kill D’s family. The characteristic of being a drug addict was self-induced so not relevant. Appeal was dismissed.

Question 19

DURESS: R v Abdul-Hussain (1999)

Answer 19

Duress of Circumstance:
Seven Defendants were all facing death sentences in their home country of Sudan so they hijacked a plane headed for Jordan and it landed at Stanstead. CoA accepted their appeals of duress as the threat was imminent so that it was “hanging over them”.

Question 20

DURESS: R v Dudley & Stevens (1884)

Answer 20

Necessity:
4 sailors got lost at sea in a tiny lifeboat and barely any food. They decided to eat the cabin boy as he was already sick. When they got back to land they were arrested and found guilty of murder. Necessity does not work.

Question 21

CONSENT: Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Answer 21

Consent:
Policeman grabbed a woman’s arm to get her attention. She retaliated and scratched him. She claimed that the policeman acted outside the course of his employment. Courts ruled in her favour.

Question 22

CONSENT: Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Are Health Authority (1986)

Answer 22

Consent Must be Valid;
Mrs Gillick challenged a doctor who gave her under-16 year old daughter contraception. HoL held that Doctors can prescribe contraception if the person is held to be competent enough. “Gillick Competence”.

Question 23

CONSENT: R v Dica (2004)

Answer 23

Consent Must be Informed:
D slept with 2 women who did not know that he was HIV positive. V’s did not consent to the risk of HIV infection as they had been unaware.

Question 24

CONSENT: R v Tabassum (2000)

Answer 24

Fraud:
D pretended he was a doctor and examined the breasts of 3 women. D had deceived the women so conviction of indecent assault was upheld.

Question 25

CONSENT: R v Billinghurst (1978)

Answer 25

Exceptions (Sports):
V was a rugby player who (off the ball) got punched by another player. Jury convicted D of GBH as he had gone beyond what V was consenting to.

Question 26

CONSENT: R v Barnes (2004)

Answer 26

Exceptions (Sports):
D injured another player during a football match. Conviction was overturned as if you play a sport you automatically consent to the risks of that sport.

Question 27

CONSENT: R v Coney (1882)

Answer 27

Exceptions:
D’s were charged with assault after having a bare-knuckle fight. They cannot consent to that.

Question 28

CONSENT: Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 6 of 1980)

Answer 28

Boxing:
2 Teenagers decided to settle an argument by having a fight in a public place. CoA does not allow consent as it isn’t in the public interest.

Question 29

CONSENT: R v Jones (1986)

Answer 29

Horseplay:
Gang of boys through their friends 10 feet into the air. One of them broke their arm and the other ruptured a spleen. Defence of consent was allowed as all parties in the incident thought of it as a joke.

Question 30

CONSENT: R v Brown & Others (1993)

Answer 30

Sexual Acts:
Homosexual, sado-masochistic sex party. Included genital torture and branding. Courts ruled that they cannot consent to acts like that.

Question 31

CONSENT: R v Wilson (1996)

Answer 31

Sexual Acts:
D used hot knives to brand his initials onto his wife’s arse. Injuries were reported by a doctor. Conviction was overturned on appeal. Courts ruled that the act was no more dangerous than tattooing.