Defences

Question 1

What are the different types of defences?

Answer 1

Insanity
Automatism
Intoxication
Self defence
Duress

Question 2

What is Insanity in defence?

Answer 2

“At the time of committing the act, the defendant was labouring under such a defect of reasoning, arising from a defect of mind, that he did not know the nature and quality of his act or, if he did know this, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.”

[M’ Naghten Rules (1843) 10 Cl & Finn 200]

Question 3

What does Defect of reason mean?

Answer 3

Occurs when the defendant is incapable of exercising ordinary powers of reasoning.

Question 4

R v. Clark [1972] 1 All ER 2019 (CA)

Facts and Legal principle:

Answer 4

Facts:
The defendant was charged with theft after putting groceries in her bag. She claimed she acted absent - mindedly whilst suffering from depression. The trail judge ruled that this amounted to a defect of reason and raised instantly.

Legal principle:
It was held that ‘defect of reason’ required inability to exercise reason rather than a failure to do so at the time at which the exercise of reason was possible. The defendant in this case failed to exercise powers of reason but was not incapable of reasoning this was not within the scope of insanity.

Question 5

What does Disease of the mind mean?

Answer 5

Judicial interpretation of his has moved the legal definition away from the medical conception of insanity

Question 6

R v. Sullivan [1984] AC 156 (HL)

Facts and Legal principle:

Answer 6

Facts:
The defendant caused GBH during an epileptic fit.

Legal principle:
The House of Lords held that the nature of the disease, physical or psychological, was irrelevant provided it affected the ‘mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding’ as the time of the offence.

Question 7

What is Nature & Quality of the act?

Answer 7

Requires lack of awareness of the physical nature & quality of the act (not its moral qualities). There must be a difference between the defendants actions and what he ‘thinks’ he is doing:

• The nature of the act concerns its characteristics e.g. the defendant put a baby on the fire thinking it was a log.
• The quality of the act concerns its consequences e.g. the defendant cut off the sleeping victim’s head in order to watch him looking for it in the morning; He was aware of the nature of decapitation but not of its consequences.
• Delusional motives will not suffice e.g. a defendant who battered his wife to death to prevent her abduction by aliens remains aware of the nature and quality of his act.

Question 8

What does Knowledge that the act is wrong mean?

Answer 8

If the defendant is aware of the nature and quality of his act, he may still raise insanity if he does not know that his actions are wrong (legally rather than morally).

Question 9

R v. Windle [1952] 2 QB 826 (CA)

Facts and Legal principle:

Answer 9

Facts:
The defendant was medically insane. He gave his suicidal wife an overdose. Upon arrest, he made reference to the likelihood he would hang for his actions.

Legal principle:
‘Wrong’ v

Question 10

What is diminished responsibility?

Answer 10

Absolves an accused person of part of the liability for his criminal act if he suffers from such abnormality of mind as to substantially impair his responsibility in committing or being a party to an alleged violation.

Question 11

What is loss of control

Answer 11

A partial defence that may reduce liability for murder to manslaughter. It does not operate to absolve the defendant of liability completely. It is not a general defence and exists only for the offence of murder.

Question 12

1. DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY
   The defence of diminished responsibility reduces the murder conviction by removing malice aforethought. For example, if the offender has an abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition, diminished responsibility may be pleaded successfully. It will, however, be necessary to obtain and serve complex medical evidence as to the state of mind of the accused, at the time of the offence and leading up to it.
2. PROVOCATION/LOSS OF CONTROL
   There may be evidence to suggest that an act was provoked immediately before the offence, however, this provocation must have been sufficient to make a ‘reasonable man’ do as the defendant did and lose self-control. The act must have therefore negated the offender’s ability to properly control his or her behaviour.
3. SUICIDE PACT
   A suicide pact is an agreed plan between two or more individuals to commit suicide. The plan may be to die together, or separately and closely timed. The accused must have intended to die in the pact to stand accused of manslaughter rather than murder.