Criminal Defences Flashcards
what can Intoxication defence challenge?
Either actus reus - level of intox meant actions were involuntary
Mens Rea - Due to level of intox, incapable of forming guilty mind.
What did English Law say on Intoxication defence?
Defence only available for crime of specific intent.
HCA Case of O’Connor on intox defence?
Moved away from specific intent and allowed defence for all offences.
S428 A-I Crimes Act?
Over rode decision of O’Connor’s case. Reinforced ‘specific intent’ offences where intoxication is or is not available as a defence.
428 B?
Intox defence only available for ‘specific intent’ offences.
What is specific intent offence?
Offence where intention to cause specific result is an element.
Example of a specific intent offence?
S33 - Wounding/GBH with intent.
428 D?
Defence not available for other offences not listed in 428 B unless not self induced intox.
428 H?
Abolishes common law defence of intoxication. Specifically, O’connor.
Explain duress as a defence
Person commits crime in extreme fear or under threat. Excuses person from criminal liability.
R v Hurley and Murray? ROPEDMC
Requirements to prove duress.
- Under threat of death or GBH
- Person of ordinary firmness would yield to the threat as the defendant did;
- Threat was present and continuing; imminient and impending;
- Defendant had a reasonable apprehension the threat would be carried out.
- He was thereby induced to commit the offence.
- Crime was not to murder nor any crime so heinous so as to be expected by the doctrine.
- Didn’t escape from duress when given chance.
- Had no means with safety to himself of preventing execution of threat.
Test for duress?
Subjective - Whether defndants will was overborne
Objective - Would person of reasonable firmness do the same in circumstances.
Self Defence section?
418 Crimes Act.
Two elements for self defence?
SUbjective - DId accused believe behaviour was necessary to defend himself?
Objective - Were actions of accused reasonable/proportional in circumstances?
Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact?
Proudman v Dayman.
If honest and reasonable belief of a set of facts were true, then no offence would be committed, not some other offence.
Test for honest and reasonable?
SUbjective - Did they hold honest belief?
Objective - Was the belief reasonable?
Claim of right case law?
R v Fuge
What offences does claim of right relate to?
Property offences.
What does claim of right go to?
absence of mens rea
Legal or moral claim of right?
legal.
9 elements of R v Fuge?
- Claim must involve belief as to right to property or money of another.
- CLaim must be genuinely held (honestly)
- Belief doesnt have to be reasonable, must have some basis.
- Belief must be legal not moral
- Whether accused had genuine belief in legal right to property, not a legal right to recover it.
- Claim doesn’t have to be the specific property, can extend to property of equivalent value.
- Not apply to claim that intentionally beyond that to which bona fides claim attaches.
- Can’t be an accessory, must be principal offender to hold claim.
- For the crown to negative claim when sufficiently raised Beyond reasonable doubt.
Name four defences available to defendant in local courts.
Self Defence
Honest and Reasonable excuse
CLaim of right
Duress
Explain what is meant by automatism.
The defendant had no control over the actions of his body - challenges actus reus.
Three examples of automatism?
Epileptic fit.
Sleepwalking
Concussion
Three Elements in defence of necessity?
Three elements to make the defence of necessity.
- Crim act must have been done to avoid certain consequences which would have caused irreprable evil on him or person charged to protect.
- Must honestly believe on reasonable grounds he was placed in a situation of irreprable evil.
- Acts done to avoid imminent peril must be proportional to peril avoided. No break in time from threat to act.
What is meant by defence of necessity?
The criminal act was necessary in order to avoid something seriously bad happening to the defendant.
Leading case on insanity?
McNaughtens.
Case Law for duress considerations?
R v Hurley and Murray
