Defences Flashcards
What is automatism?
Automatism is a full defence and can be used with any offence. It applies to a situation where the D is not legally insane but because of some external factor, he is unable to control what he is doing
what case was an involuntary act defined in? (automatism)
It was defined in Bratty as an ‘act done by the muscles without any control by the mind e.g spasm, a reflex action or; an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing e.g suffering from concussion or sleepwalking’ (Lord Denning)
what are the requirements to prove automatism ?
- involuntary (loss of 100% control), 2. due to external factor (e.g swarm of bees, taken meds)
What are some examples of where a defence of sane automatism has been excepted?
sudden spasm or fit, sudden temporary illness, hypnotic trance, an accident causing concussion, the intervention of a non-human agency such as a swarm of angry bees (Hill v Baxter)
automatism external factor examples:
blow to the head, rather than an internal factor such as a disease, the factor can only be external to use the defence of automatism, it must also not be self-induced automatism (D knows his act is likely to cause an automatic state). External stress has also been held to be enough for a defence of automatism (R v T)
What is the automatism scaffold?
However, D could use the defence of automatism against his charge of… This is a full defence and the D will be acquitted if they succeed in proving the defence.
Firstly it must be proven that it is an involuntary act. An involuntary is defined in Bratty as an ‘act done by the muscles without any control by the mind e.g spasm, a reflex action, or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing eg suffering from concussion or sleepwalking’ (Lord Denning). Control must be a total destruction of voluntary control (Hill v Baxter). In this scenario…
Secondly, it must be an external factor. It was established in Quick the external factor of injecting himself with insulin meant he could use the defence of automatism. This must also not be self-induced automatism, where there is evidence to show the defendant was in some way at fault in bringing about the state of automatism through being reckless, or consuming alcohol or drugs (R v Bailey). In this scenario…
In this scenario, Fran would be able to use the defence of automatism.
Is automatism a part of full defence?
Full defence
What is the Diminished Responsibility Scaffold?
However, the Defendant could use the defence of diminished responsibility under s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This is a special defence to murder and it is a partial defence, therefore if proven the D will be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The burden of proof is on the D to prove that they suffered from a medical condition at the time of the killing.
There are four requirements to prove diminished responsibility.
Firstly, the D must prove that he is suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning, meaning a state of mind that the ordinary reasonable being would term abnormal (Byrne). In this scenario, (D) is suffering from a mental abnormality when…
Secondly, it must be proven that the abnormality of mental functioning arose from a recognised medical condition suffered by the D at the time of the murder. These recognised medical conditions could include depression (Gittens), battered wife syndrome (Alhuwalia), paranoia (Simcox) and schizophrenia (Moyle). Medical evidence will be needed to support this (Sutcliffe). In this scenario, (D) is suffering from…
Thirdly, it must also be proven that the Ds ability to do one or more of the three things stated in subsection 1a of the act has been substantially impaired. Substantially impaired does not mean total impairment (Lloyd). The three requirements are: the D does not know or understand the nature of their conduct, unable to form a rational judgement and exercise self-control. In this scenario, (identify which of the three are relevant)
Finally, the abnormality must provide an explanation for the D’s acts or omissions when committing the murder. There must be a causal connection between the abnormality and the killing - the abnormality must be a significant contributory explanation, but does not need to be the only reason (Golds). In this scenario,…
Therefore, (D) would/would not be able to use diminished responsibility as a defence of murder. And charged with manslaughter.
What offences can you used diminished responsibility to defend?
Murder only, if this defence can be used would be charged with voluntary manslaughter
What is insanity?
Insanity is a defence to all crimes except strict liability offences. (DPP v H, 1997) (a liability for which MR does not have to be proven e.g statutory rape)
Is insanity a part, or full defence?
full defence
what are the three requirments for insanity established after the case of M’Naghten
- The D must be suffering from a defect of reasoning
- The defect of reason must be caused by a disease of the mind
- This causes the D to not know the nature and quality of the act, or not know he was doing wrong
What is self defence recognised under?
S3 (1) Criminal Law Act 1967: “A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in prevention of crime”
Is self defence a full or part defence?
A full defence available to all defences
What are the requirements to prove self defence?
- Was the force necessary
- Was the force reasonable in the circumstances
- subjective test - in the circumstances that the D believed them to be
