Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Defences > Flashcards

Defences Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Self-Defense under Common Law

A

D can use force to protect himself; another person; or property

Force must be:

a. necessary; and
b. reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

s3 Criminal Law Act 1967

A

D can use force to prevent a crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bailey

A

Left to the jury to decide; results in a full acquittal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Necessary under s76 Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008

A

D can rely on a genuine belief of circumstances even if they were mistaken in their belief the force was necessary, even if the mistake was unreasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Williams

A

Ds mistaken belief was allowed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bird

A

D does not need to show a reluctance to fight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Beckford

A

D can strike first; D can use self-defence where he apprehends an attack

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

AG’s Ref 2 of 1984

A

D can prepare to defend himself, even if it breaks the law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Reasonable under Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008

A

D may not be able to weigh up the exact measure of necessary action;

but if he was doing what he thought honestly and instinctively necessary then this is strong evidence that reasonable action was taken

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Clegg

A

Self-defense will fail if the force used was excessive;

the degree of force used must be measured against the circumstances as D believed them.

the amount of force must be reasonable in the circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

s76(5A) CJIA 2008

A

In householder cases, where D is in a dwelling, not a trespasser, and believed V to be a trespasser, the force will be reasonable unless it is grossly disproportionate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bratty v AG for NI

A

An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

A-Gs Ref 2 of 1993

A

There must be a total destruction of voluntary control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Broome v Perkins

A

D must act completely without consciousness or control;

here loss of control whilst driving was intermittent so D still maintained enough control to prevent crash

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hill v Baxter

A

swarm of bees is an external cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v T

A

PTSD from rape is an external cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Whooley

A

sneezing is an external cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

additional external causes

A

effect of a drug, hypnosis, or a blow to the head

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Bailey

A

Automatism cannot be self-induced; automatism will fail where D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state

Insulin is an external cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Hardie (A)

A

Where basic intent crimes are concerned, automatism may fail where D realises the risk

Automatism allowed as D did not realise risk of valium changing behaviour as did not take it before

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

M’Naghten Rules

A

Burden of proving insanity on balance of probabilities is on D who must prove:

  1. D had a defect of reason; and
  2. This was caused by a disease of the mind; so that
  3. D either does not know the nature and quality of his act, or does but does not know it was wrong

Complete defense and D will be found ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’

22
Q

Clarke

A

Absent-mindedness or confusion is not enough; D’s powers of reasoning must be impaired/defect of reason

23
Q

Quick

A

The cause must be internal (disease of the mind)

24
Q

Kemp

A

can be mental or physical as long as it affects D’s mind;

condition affecting blood supply to brain causing temporary loss of consciousness is a disease of the mind

25
Q

Sullivan

A

epilepsy is a disease of the mind and can be ‘permanent, transient, or intermittent’

26
Q

Hennessy

A

Diabetes - failing to take insulin is a disease of the mind as internal condition of diabetes affecting D

27
Q

Burgess

A

Sleep disorder causing sleep walking is a disease of the mind

28
Q

Windle, Johnson

A

If D knows the nature and quality of his act is legally wrong he cannot claim insanity even if he is suffering a mental illness

D is in a state of unconsciousness, or is conscious but does not understand his act because of the mental condition

29
Q

Howe, Gotts

A

D is forced to commit a crime because of threats of death/serious injury;

Duress is not available for murder

30
Q

Valderrama-Vega

A

D can be threatened with other things as long as there is also a threat of death or serious injury

31
Q

Lynch, Singh, Quayle, Baker & Wilkins

A

Duress cannot be:

  1. threats to property
  2. threats to expose adultery
  3. threats of severe pain
  4. threats of psychological harm
32
Q

Martin, Conway, Hasan

A

Threat can be at D or family/friends;
or a person for whom D would reasonably regard themselves as responsible

  1. wife
  2. passenger
  3. responsible
33
Q

Cole

A

The threat must be for D to commit a specific crime

34
Q

Graham

A

Did D honestly and reasonably believe life was in immediate danger?

Would a sober person of reasonable firmness (sharing D’s characteristics) have responded in the same way? - OBJECTIVE following Hasan

35
Q

Martin

A

D must believe there was a threat of death or serious injury

36
Q

Bowen, Hegarty

A

Low IQ;
Timidity/vulnerability

are not relevant characteristics
(age, gender, physical health or disability)

37
Q

Sharp, Shepherd

A

If D brings the duress on himself it will not be allowed

  1. knew they were violent
  2. no knowledge of using violence
38
Q

Gill

A

There must be no time to escape/raise the alarm

39
Q

Hudson & Taylor

A

If raising the alarm would not be effective, duress is allowed

40
Q

Hasan

A

The threat must be able to take place as soon as the defence is committed

Immediacy is the ‘cardinal feature’ of the defence

41
Q

Willer

A

D is forced to commit a crime because of the situation he finds himself in

D allowed duress of circumstance when reckless driving as the situation he was in (surrounded by gang) forced him to commit the crime

42
Q

Pommell

A

Allowed duress of circumstances as the situation he was in forced him to be in possession of a weapon

43
Q

Martin (DoC)

A

Confirmed the Graham test for duress is the same as for duress of circumstance

44
Q

Effect on defence of duress

A

Duress is an excuse. It’s existence does not necessarily result in a not guilty verdict; it will depend on the jury’s view

45
Q

Specific intent crimes

A

MENS REA is intention

s18, theft, robbery, murder

46
Q

Majewski

A

Voluntary intoxication can be used to show D had not formed the necessary mens rea for the crime.

The specific intent crime may be lowered to the lesser basic intent option

47
Q

Sheehan & Moore

A

D’s did not have mens rea for murder due to intoxication so charge reduced

murder > manslaughter

48
Q

AG for NI v Gallagher

A

If D has mens rea before the crime then cannot use subsequent intoxication to remove his guilt: drunken intent is still intent

49
Q

Basic intent crimes

A

MENS REA only has to be recklessness

assault, battery, ABH, s20 UAM

50
Q

Lipman

A

Voluntary intoxication is no defence where the crime is one of basic intent because D’s self-induced intoxication may be seen as recklessness

51
Q

Kingston

A

D becomes intoxicated through no fault of their own

Even though D was spiked still had necessary mens rea for crime - intoxication simply took away resistance to committing crime

52
Q

Hardie (IV)

A

Involuntary intoxication will be a full defence as long as D did not already have the mens rea

D took prescription drug making him react differently than expected, but had not been reckless in taking it so defence was allowed

Law (15 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions