Defences Flashcards
What are the 2 types of defences?
- Capacity
- Necessity
Key Elements of Insanity
Capacity Defence
- Based on M’Naghten rules 1843
- Established 3 key rules:
1) Defect of reason
2) As a result of a disease of the mind
3) Causes D to not know nature and quality of the act
Key Elements of Defect of Reason
Insanity
- Doesn’t include absentmindedness or being confused
- Can’t just be failing to use their power of reasoning
Disease of the Mind
Insanity
- Legal term, not medical
- Must be supported by medical evidence
- Must originate from an internal source
- Includes:
> brain tumores
> epilepsy
> depression
> schizophrenia
> paranoia
> diabetes
Not Knwoing the Nature and Quaility of the Act
Insanity
- If D knew actions were wrong then they’re liable, even if they have medical condition
- Means physical nature, not moral element
Consequences of an Insanity Verdict
Insanity
- Hospital order
- Supervision order
- Absolute discharge
R v Burgees 1991
Insanity
D attacked V while sleepwalking
Sleepwalking is an internal factor, therefore insanity
R v Quick 1973
Insanity
D was diabetic. Didn’t eat enough food and attacked a patient
Can’t use insanity as was an external factor - insufficient food
Define Automatism
Capacity Defence
- An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind
- E.g. a spasm or convulsion, or someone who is not conscious of what they’re doing
Elements of Automatism
Automatism
- Must be an external factor:
> Being struck on the head
> Slipping on ice
> Hiccups
> Coughing fit - Must be a total loss of control:
> Impaired, reduced or parital control is invalid
What is Self-Induced Automatism
Automatism
- D knows their conduct will bring out an automatic state, e.g. intoxication
- Exception where D doesn’t know their voluntary actions would cause automatism
R v T 1990
Automatism
D had exceptional stress. Exceptional stress only sufficent for partial control loss
Can’t use automatism as only sufficent for partial control loss
Bailey 1983
Self-Induced Automatism
D was diabetic, failed to eat after taking insulin. Became agressive and hit V with iron bar
D liable as automatism was self-induced
Intoxication
Capacity Defence
- Includes drugs, alcohol and other substances
- Can affect mens rea & therefore liability
- Can be voluntary or involuntary
Voluntary Intoxication
Intoxication
- D chooses to take substance
Specific Intent Crimes For Intoxication
Intoxication
- If D is so intoxicated that they cant form mens rea, then it is complete defence
- If D still has intent of mens rea, they can be guilty of the offence
Basic Intent Crimes For Intoxication
Intoxication
- If recklessness is sufficent for mens rea, then D will be liable if voluntarily intoxicated
- Becoming intoxicated is sufficent for recklessness of mens rea, and shows intent for crimes like ABH and common assault
Involuntary Intoxication
Intoxication
- Where D was unaware of taking intoxicating substances
- Can be spiking drinks
- If involuntarily intoxicated and didn’t form mens rea, not quilty
- If D did form mens rea when involuntarily intoxicated, then can be liable
DPP v Majewski 1977
Intoxication
D drank lots and took drugs. Got into fight.
D liable of ABH as was reckless at to getting intoxicated
R v Kingston 1994
Intoxication
A known pedo drank a drugged coffee (was involuntarily intoxicated). Went on to abuse young boy.
Was liable as was still aware of what he was doing
What are the 3 Necessity Defences?
- Self-defence/The prevention fo crime
- Duress by threats
- Duress of circumstances
Define Self-Defence
Necessity Defence
- Using reasonable force in order to defend oneself
What 2 Things Are Looked at in Self-Defence?
Self-Defence
- Was the use of force necessary?
- Was the forse reaosnable in the circumstances?
Was the Force Necessary?
Self-Defence
- Subjective Test
- Based on D’s genuine belief