Defences

Question 1

Consent
Valid

Answer 1

Burrell V Harmer
Held - they were too young to give valid consent as they did not have legal capacity

Question 2

Consent
True

Answer 2

Tabassum
Held - there is no true consent as he lied about his identity

Dica
Held - defendant was found guilty of section 20 GBH as women were unaware about the quality of the act

Question 3

Exceptions
created under Brown by HOL for s.47 ABH ,s.20 GBH

Question 4

What is the principle of consent for Organise contact sports?

Answer 4

Consent only valid in sports if it’s played within the rules of the games.

For sports played with balls it’s called on the ball (Barnes)
Or of the ball (Billinghurst)

Consent is valid in boxing if it’s within the Queensbury Rules

AG Ref No.6 1980 Held -
The CA held that consent was not valid as the fight was not held under the Queensbury rules.

Question 5

Tattooing/branding

🟫😙🔐

Answer 5

Wilson held - The CA allowed to appeal and extend the meaning of tattooing to include branding

Brown held-the House of Lords rejected an appeal against conviction because it was not in the public interest for the defendant to cause bodily harm for no good reason

R V Lock Held - He was acquitted at the crown court after the Jury accepted that this was consensual behaviour between adults

inadvertent violence- accidental injuries during sexual activity is allowed (Slingsbury)

Sado masochistic sexual activity- the law does not tolerate deliberate inflection of injury for sexual gratification therefore the defence of consent is not valid (Brown) (Emmett)

Question 6

Horseplay

🦴🦴🦴

Answer 6

Jones held -consent is valid for rough and undisciplined horse play Eg in the playground

Question 7

Euthanasia

Answer 7

Pretty held - not an exception no person can consent to their own death any person who kills a person who is terminally ill will be guilty of murder and if they help that person they will be guilty of assisting suicide

Question 8

Case???

Self Defence

Necessary

Mistake and self defence

Answer 8

Williamson (Gladstone)

Question 9

Case ???

self defence

Necessary

Self defence and intoxication

Answer 9

o’Grady held -
His plea of self defence failed on appeal his conviction for manslaughter was upheld the CA said that I mistaken belief of being attacked was due to his voluntary intoxication so cannot form the basis of a defence to any crime

Question 10

self defence

Necessary

Defendants characteristics

Answer 10

Martin held-The court of appeal held that psychiatric evidence should not be taken into account when determining if the force is necessary he perceived threat to be greater than it was so self defence cannot be used it failed

Question 11

self defence

Reasonable

Excessive/disproportionate

Answer 11

if the force is seen as disproportionate or excessive force the defence will fail (Clegg)

Question 12

self defence

Reasonable

Pre-emptive

Answer 12

it’s not absolutely necessary that the defendant be attacked first and defendant is entitled to get his blow in first if it’s reasonably necessary to do so (Deana)

Question 13

self defence

Reasonable

Possibility to retreat

🕊🕊🕊

Answer 13

The courts have made it clear that there is no duty to retreat before using force so defendant can stand their ground in an argument they do not have to walk away Bird Held - The court held that self defence was valid and she did not need to show withdrawal.

Question 14

Self defence

Householders protecting the property

☀️☀️☀️

Answer 14

section 43 of the crime courts act 2013 amended section 76 of the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 giving a wider defence to protect property when an intruder enters the normal rule is that the force is allowed if it’s excessive/disproportionate but it cannot be grossly disproportionate which is a matter for the jury to decide (Ray)

Question 15

Insanity

Answer 15

One-defect of reason
Two-due to a Disease of the mind (internally)
Three-causing defendant to either not understand the nature and quality of his act if he did he did not know what he was doing was wrong 

Question 16

What case was insanity defined in?

Answer 16

McNaghten Rules 1843 As a whole defendants are presume to be sane until the defence proves otherwise.

Question 17

Defect of reasoning

Answer 17

Defendants power to reason is impaired if defendant is capable to reason defence fails- clarke

Question 18

Disease of the mind
voluntary Intoxication

Answer 18

Kemp-defendant must prove he was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time he committed the actus reus of the offence.Any illness which affects memory reasoning understanding caused by an internal source

Sullivan -Epilepsy
Burgess- sleepwalking
T-Dissociation
Hennessy Hyperglycaemia Quick Hypoglycaemia -Diabetes

if defendant voluntarily takes an intoxicating substance which causes a temporary psychotic episode defendant cannot use the defence of insanity this is because the intoxicating substance is an external factor- Coley

Question 19

Defendant did not understand the nature and quality of his act

Answer 19

Oye

Question 20

Or if he did that he did not know what he was doing was legally wrong

Answer 20

Windle

Question 21

What act makes hospitalisation only mandatory for murder

Answer 21

Criminal procedure (insanity and on fitness to plead) act 1991

Question 22

What is the special verdict?

Answer 22

Where in sanity succeeds defendant will be found not guilty by reason of insanity this is known as a special verdict

Question 23

Intoxication

Question 24

what is the introduction?

Answer 24

Covers D who have been charged with a criminal defence but we’re commuting the offence under the influence of drugs alcohol or solvents it’s not a defence by itself but can support claim we’re D lacked the necessary MR

Question 25

Voluntary intoxication
Basic intent crimes

Answer 25

Basic intent crimes always fail as a D already has mens rea as he was reckless by becoming intoxicated.

DPP V Majewski HELD - HOL held that an intoxicated state is no defence as it’s a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary MR.

Question 26

voluntary intoxication
Specific intent crimes

Answer 26

for specific crimes intoxication may provide a defence if it prevented the deal from forming intention if it did then the defendant will be convicted of a lesser charge this is called the fallback principle as illustrated in Sheehan and Moore however an intoxicated intent is still sufficient intent in law.

Sheehan V Moore HELD - Defence succeeded as they didn’t form the MR of murder as they were too drunk to find the intention to kill or GBH they were convicted of involuntary. manslaughter

Question 27

What is Dutch courage?

Answer 27

where defendant has deliberately drunk in order to provide the courage to commit an offence he will be unable to use the defence as he has the intention/MR before he was intoxicated.

AG V Gallagher HELD - Lord Denning held that intoxication could not provide a defence as defendant had already from the mens rea before the intoxication took place.

Question 28

Involuntary intoxication

Answer 28

Allowed for basic and specific intent crimes where defendant takes an intoxicating substance place on a where are the intoxication is an unwonted side-effect
The test is whether the defendant had the necessary MR at the time of the offence
Defendant will be entitled to a full defence as long as he’s not reckless in taking the drug
it’ll still be voluntary intoxication if defendant thought they were drinking a drink with low alcohol percentage than they actually were as they were still drinking (Allen)

Question 29

prescribe drugs
Soporific drugs
Laced drinks

Answer 29

defendant takes a prescribed drug from a doctor and becomes intoxicated (Bailey)

claiming drugs such as sedatives or tranquillisers generally make a person sleepy or relaxed (Hardie)

Where defendant is completely unaware that they are consuming an intoxicant as their drink has been laced therefore he may have a complete defence however defendant must have the necessary MR (Kingston)

Kingston HELD - defendant was convicted of indecent assault despite the effect of any drugs he still possessed the necessary MR the law lords stated that a drunken intent is still intent.

Question 30

intoxication and other defences:
Mistake
Self defence

Answer 30

an intoxicated mistake will not provide a defence to a crime of basic intent and will only assist a crime of specific intent if the defendant can show they did not form the mens rea (Fotheringham)

if the drunken mistake is about self defence section 76 (5) criminal justice and immigration act 2008 states that the defendant will never have a defence to a basic or specific intent crime O’Grady held - Intoxication failed as manslaughter is a crime of basic intent and defendant had been reckless in becoming intoxicated therefore a drunken intent is still an intent.

Question 31

Duress by threats

Question 32

What is the definition of duress?

Answer 32

Dress is a common-law defence, that applies where a Person commits a crime because they were acting under a threat of death or serious injury.
Defendant is forced to break the law because of the threat made, but he must have acted as a reasonable man.
It’s a common lawful defence available to all crimes, except for murder Howe and attempted murder Gotts and treason.

Question 33

What are the tests for duress and what case establish these tests?

Answer 33

Hasan, in 2005, stated the tests were:
1- There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury directed against the defendant, our immediate family or someone they are close to (responsible for).
2- Defendant must act reasonably in the light of the threats and be judged objectively
3- The threats relate closely to the crime. This is the Causal Nexus.
4- There was no evasive action defendant could have taken
5- Defence fails, if defendant voluntarily associate themselves with violence

Question 34

What Is the case for threat must be of death or serious injury against the defendant immediate family, someone they are close to or someone who says that there are responsible for.
💊💉👨🏼‍❤️‍💋‍👨🏾

Answer 34

Valderrama-Vega held- Only the latter constituted duress So the other threats could then be taken into account

Question 35

What is the case for defendant must act reasonably in the light of the threats and be judged objectively
👨‍❤️‍💋‍👨

Answer 35

Graham held Both were charged with murder. Graham pleaded duress but was convicted for murder the court set out the above two-part test.

Question 36

What is the two-part test under the defendant must act reasonably in the light of the threats and be judged objectively and what is the 2nd tests case?
🤷‍♀️ low IQ

Answer 36

Was he forced to act, as he recently believed he had cause to fear, death or serious injury This is a subjective test as the defendant was honestly and reasonably believe that he had a good cause to be a death or serious injury. The case of Hasan confirmed that the belief in the threats must be reasonable.

What does sober man of reasonable firmness having the defendants characteristics have acted in the same way this is an objective test. The defendant must have acted as a sober, man or reasonable firmness having some of the defendants characteristics.
Bowen held- The court held that low, IQ was not a relevant characteristic, however, age, gender, pregnancy, and any mental or physical disability was.

Question 37

What is casual Nexus and what is the case?
💵🥷🏽🏠

Answer 37

There has to be a direct link between the threat and the final crime committed by the defendant. Otherwise the defence will fail so the threat must Make the defendant commit specific offence.

Cole held- The defence of duress failed, as there was a lack of casual nexus between the threat, and the commission of the offence.

Question 38

What is timing of the threat and its case?
🚛🚚

Answer 38

Could the defendant have taken any evasive action, where they in a situation where they have no safe avenue of escape.

Gill held - Defendant has the possibility of a safe avenue of escape therefore, the defence fails.

Question 39

What is voluntary association with violence and what is the case? (self induced duress)
🥷🏽🗡️🏚️

Answer 39

The defence of duress is excluded when, as a result of his association, he foresaw or ought reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to threats or violence.

Hasan held - Now, if there is an association with a drug dealer, the defence will fail as he foresaw art reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to threats of violence.

Question 40

What is duress of circumstances/necessity and it’s case?
🛳️🧑🏽‍🦱

Answer 40

This defence arises where the defendant by themselves in the circumstance that are so intimidating that he is forced act and commit the actus reus of an offence. Here the threat does not come from a person but arises from the surrounding circumstances.

For example, a mother has a child, she cannot feed so steals food in order to feed the child

Dudley and Stephens held - necessity, failed as the court held, that one persons life is no more important than another

Use the Graham test for a reasonable man

Question 41

When can the defendant have a defence of duress of circumstances And it’s case?
🌳🌲

Answer 41

He reasonably believed he had good Costa, theatre, death or serious injury and a sober man of reason above family sharing some of the defence character mistakes wouldn’t have react in the same way.

Willer held- The CA acquitted defendant Andres succeeded due to the circumstances he had found himself in

Question 42

When Did the court of appeal state a defendant Could have a defence of necessity?
👧👧

Answer 42

The act was done in order to prevent a greater inevitable evil. The act was reasonable necessary, and not disproportionate for the evil to be avoided.

A further requirement was added by the House of Lords in shayler. The evil must be directed towards the defendant or persons who he had responsibility for.
Re A held - The CA held that the defence of necessity would be available.

Question 43

Automatism

Question 44

What is the definition of automatism?

Answer 44

Automatism is a complete defence defined by Lord Denning in Bratty V AG, 1963 Where it was stated an act, which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm a reflex action or a convulsion.
Automatism occurs where the defendant is not insane, but for some other reason was unable to control the action, and therefore acted involuntarily during the commission of an offence. The automatic state must be caused by an external factor.

Question 45

What is completely involuntary and its case?

Answer 45

Defendants loss of control by the mind must render the movement by his muscles as completely involuntary.

The automatism must prevent the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea of the offence. (T)

There will be no defence if that is not complete loss of control. ( Watmore V Jenkins )

Question 46

What was HELD in the cases for completely involuntary?

Answer 46

T held her plea for automatism was successful as her act was involuntary.

Watmore V Jenkins held The court stated that in order for automatism to succeed. There has to be a complete destruction of voluntary control.

Question 47

What is external factor and it’s cases?

Answer 47

Defendants automatic involuntary state must have been brought on from something external to their body.

In cases of diabetes, if he has taken the insulin, it can be argued that this is external (Quick).

However, if the state of this association was caused by the ordinary Stresses of life, it would be classed as insanity (Burgess)

Falconer held The defence of automatism succeeded, as this was an external cause.

Question 48

What is self induced automatism in and it’s cases?

Answer 48

This is where the defendant has induced his own automatic state and therefore has prior faults depending on the type of offence. It will decide whether defendant can still use automatism as a defence Hardie

Question 49

What defence should be applied when the defendant has Induced his own automatic state?

Answer 49

Apply the rules of intoxication

Question 50

What type Of intent crime is self induced automatism?

Answer 50

It is a basic intent crime as the crime can be committed by intention or recklessness.
Self induced is a reckless course of conduct as the defendant has not taken medication.

Question 51

What is specific and basic intent?

Answer 51

Specific intent - self induced automatism, and can succeed if it prevented you from possessing the mens rea.

Basic intent- If defendant was unaware that his actions would lead to an automatic state, and was therefore was not reckless the defence may succeed, (Hardie).

If self induced automatic state is caused by drink or illegal drugs, the defendant cannot use the defence DPP V Majewski decided that becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct.

There is no defence where the defendant was reckless in bringing about his own automatic state (Bailey)