Criminal law: Specific offences and defences

Question 1

General defence vs defence (with example)

Answer 1

General defences can be raised to most crimes

A defence can be raised only to specific offences (eg: Diminished responsibility = Murder)

Question 2

Name 5 bases of defences

Answer 2

Automatism: Actions in actus reus were involuntary

Intoxication: Denies prosecution has established mens rea.

Insanity: Denies both/but more mens rea

Self-defence: D claims to be justified in mens rea.

Duress/duress of circumstances: D admits actus reus and mens rea but claims to be justified.

Question 3

What 2 decisions must be made when the defence is intoxication?

Answer 3

• Between substances that are regarded as intoxicants,
  and substances which are not.
• Between voluntary and involuntary intoxication

Question 4

How can the defence of intoxication be proven? (2)

Answer 4

If D suffers intoxication effects from a substance that isn’t an intoxicant, he can explain himself in evidence:

1. Produces changes of mood, perception, consciousness, reduction of inhibition, impaired self-control and motor skills, and ability to react, difficulty in forming judgments and assessing the consequences of actions.
2. When the drugs produce the effects that are expected of them, not when they produce entirely different effects.

Question 5

When is intoxication voluntary? (2)

Answer 5

Voluntary: Consuming substances and knowing their
effects (or it is commonly known) Even if they
make a mistake about the strength of the
intoxicant.

               If D consumes a medical drug, and the drug 
               hasn’t been prescribed, OR doesn’t follow 
               medical advice.

Question 6

Specific intent vs basic intent

Answer 6

In these cases of voluntary intoxication offences can be split into:

Specific intent- Satisfied by proof of an intention. Includes murder, bodily harm, theft and robbery. If D raises evidence of intoxication to avoid specific intent, he will be convicted of any associated basic intent offence.

Basic intent- Satisfied by proof of recklessness. Manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, assault, battery, criminal damage. D is not allowed to raise evidence of intoxication for a basic intent offence. If he has no other argument, it is almost certain that he will be convicted. The crown must prove that he would have foreseen the risk, had he not been intoxicated.

Some offences include both elements.

Question 7

Can voluntary consumption be used in court under objective recklessness/negligence? (3)

Answer 7

Voluntary consumption of intoxicants is reckless, supplying mens rea. This is broad and cannot be used in court most of the time.

Offences that are committed with objective recklessness or negligence, D’s conduct is judged against the standard of a reasonable, sober person.

Strict liability offences do not require proof of mens rea, and so intoxication would be irrelevant.

Question 8

When is intoxication involuntary?

Answer 8

1. When consuming it without knowing they have consumed substance at all/not knowing it was an intoxicant (and it isn’t commonly known either)
2. Also, when a different intoxicant is added to the drug D was already consciously consuming.

Question 9

When is intoxication involuntary?

Answer 9

1. When consuming it without knowing they have consumed substance at all/not knowing it was an intoxicant (and it isn’t commonly known either)
2. Also, when a different intoxicant is added to the drug D was already consciously consuming.

Question 10

Why must involuntary intoxication be proven?

Answer 10

To “refute the allegation of mens rea”.

Question 11

What is a plea of mistake?

Answer 11

A denial of mens rea. It means that D wasn’t aware of the risk of a particular consequence.

Question 12

Ho can a plea of mistake be used to prove subjective/objective recklessness?

Answer 12

Proof of intention of D/subjective recklessness: An honest mistake would be evidence of lack of mens rea.

Proof of negligence/objective recklessness: Honest AND reasonable mistake is evidence for the lack of mens rea.

Question 13

When is the use of force in defence against crime reasonable? (3)

Answer 13

• Mistake about the facts of the case by D have to be
  genuine. BUT never induced through intoxication!
• The force used must be proportional to the offence.
  based on a reasonable person. Fear and little time to
  make a decision of D must be considered.
• There is no restriction to the offences to which self
  defence/prevention of crime can be a defence. If D kills
  using more than proportionate force, he can not plead
  for manslaughter, but he’ll lose the defence entirely.

Question 14

Name 8 non-fatal offences against the person

Answer 14

• Assault
• Battery
• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
• Unlawful/malicious wounding/grievous bodily harm
• The actus reus
• The mens rea
• Harassment
• Consent as a defence to offences of personal injury

Question 15

Name 8 non-fatal offences against the person

Answer 15

• Assault
• Battery
• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
• Unlawful/malicious wounding/grievous bodily harm
• The actus reus
• The mens rea
• Harassment
• Consent as a defence to offences of personal injury

Question 16

Name 8 kinds of unlawful homicide:

Answer 16

• The actus reus of unlawful homicide
• Murder
• Voluntary manslaughter
• Involuntary manslaughter
• Unlawful act manslaughter
• Unlawful act (must be dangerous and cause death)
• Gross negligence manslaughter
• Corporate manslaughter

Question 17

Outline the facts of the “R v Dudley and Stevens” case, the arguments of prosecution and defence, and the judgment

Answer 17

Facts:
Dudley and Stevens were stuck on a boat during a storm and killed and ate the boy that was with them after not eating for 7 days. (S only assisted). They fed on his flesh for 4 days.

But is this murder or felony? (The men would have dies, the boy would have died before them, and there was no end in sight)

Prosecution:
The only defence for murder is self-defence, which is not applicable here

Defence:
The mens rea of murder is intent, and in this case the only intent was to preserve their lives.

Judgment:
Self-defence is not the same as extreme hunger. There is no legal excuse for the murder, other than necessity. ‘There is no absolute necessity to preserve one’s life’.

The defendants were found guilty, receiving the death sentence.

Question 18

Outline the facts of the “A (Children)-court of appeal” case, arguments of prosecution and defence, and the judgment

Answer 18

Facts:
Conjoined twins. Mary will die either way, but Jodie can live if Mary is killed purposefully. If nothing is done, both will die.

Lord Brooke:
No previous cases could be found which addressed the specific issues of this case. Would an operation to separate them be lawful? The three defences of murder (provocation, diminished responsibility, suicide) are not relevant here.

Archbishop of Westminster:
‘One should never aim to cause an innocent person’s death by act or omission’. Can Mary be considered a ‘reasonable creature’? She is a human with a human life. Her brain, lungs, heart are useless. But if the child is alive, it is murder to kill it. Mary’s right to life must be considered equal to Jodie’s right to life. It is not lawful to administer a drug to actively kill a patient. Therefore euthanasia is not lawful. The proposed operation was in court determined lawful, an omission rather than an act. On appeal, it was determined unlawful because it would require positive acts, making it an active killing. Court determined that the surgeons intended to kill Mary, although without malice.
When the doctor’s treatment of his patient is lawful, the death of the patient should be considered exclusively caused by the injury/disease that his condition is attributed to. Mary’s death would we a secondary effect to the surgeon’s actions, which would not constitute murder. The doctrine of double effect couldn’t be considered in this case, because the operation would only be in Jodie’s best interest, not Mary’s. The doctrine of necessity was then considered.

Judgment:
The appeal was in the end dismissed, and the operation went through.

Question 19

What is the doctrine of necessity?

Answer 19

Necessity is of three sorts: conservation of life, obedience, act of God or of a stranger. R v Dudley and Stephens was the case used to determine necessity