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
Was the Force Reasonable in the Circumstance?
Self-Defence
- If D honestly and instinctively thought level of force was necessary then its likely to be deemed reasonable
- Takes into account slight over-reaction in pressure
- If force used once danger is gone, defence not avaliable
Genuine Mistakes in Self-Defence
Self-Defence
- If D made genuine mistake then jury decide if force was necessary in circumstances
- Jury decide if D honestly believed it was needed
- Mistake must be genuine, judged on facts of case
Genuine Mistakes in Self-Defence
Self-Defence
- If D made genuine mistake then jury decide if force was necessary in circumstances
- Jury decide if D honestly believed it was needed
- Mistake must be genuine, judged on facts of case
R v Martin (Anthony) 2002
Self-Defence
D shot burglar and killed him.
Held to be excessive force, not self-defence as V was making his escape
R v Williams 1987
Self-Defence
D gradded V, who he thought was attacking a youth
Was a genuine mistake and in prevention of crime so conviction quashed
What is Duress?
- Someone is forced to commit crime due to being threatened of death or serious injury
Duress by Threats
Necessity Defence
- Threat has to be:
> A threat of serious injury or death
> Threat must be to D or someone with close
relationship to D
Graham Test 1982
Duress by Threats
- Was D compelled to act as they did because they reasonably feared death or serious injury? * (SUBJECTIVE)*
- Would a sober person of reasonable firmness and same characteristics have acted in same way? (OBJECTIVE)
No Safe Avenue of Escape
Duress by Threats
- If there is a safe way to escape then must be persued
- Can only claim if there is no safe way of escaping
Self-Induced Duress
Duress by Threats
- If D aware they may be put under duress then can’t use defence
- E.g. If D joined gand and commits offences, but is then forced into committing other crimes
Gill 1963
Duress by Threats
D claimed wife was threatened if he didn’t steal a lorry.
Couldn’t claim as he had opportunity to ‘raise the alarm’
R v Gotts 1992
Duress by Threats
D was 16. D was threatened by his dad to stab his mum
Was no defence to attempted murder
Duress to Circumstance
- Someone commits a crime because of the circumstances they found themself in
Martin Test
Duress to Circumstance
1) From an objective POV , D acted reasonably and proportionatley to avoid threat of death or serious injury
2) 2 part Graham Test applies (under duress of threats)
R v Conway 1988
Duress to Circumstance
D drove fast after thinking he was shot at.
Duress avaliable if from an objection pov D was acting to avoid threat
DPP v Davis 1994
Duress to Circumstance
D drove while intoxicated to avoid being attacked
Convictoins quashed and duress by circumstances were avaliable
