Defences Flashcards
Quick Q:
A man is serving a sentence for child abuse in his local prison. One day, while socialising outside his cell, a different prisoner becomes violent and the man sees him being restrained by several prison officers before being removed forcefully to another part of the prison. The man retreats to his cell as he does not want to get involved. A few minutes later, a prison officer enters the man’s cell to check that he is okay as he noticed that the man was afraid. Before waiting for the officer to speak, the man runs at him and stabs the officer with a sharpened toothbrush. The officer suffers a deep cut to his arm.
The man is charged with an assault but pleads self-defence. At the trial, the man’s defence team provide a medical report that confirms the man has a paranoid personality disorder, that causes him to perceive a greater danger to his physical safety than the average person in that situation. In evidence, the man states that, although the officer did not appear threatening, because he had just witnessed a violent episode involving prison staff, he believed that the officer had come to beat him up as he is a convicted child abuser.
Which statement best describes how the law of self-defence applies to the man?
The man is unlikely to succeed in his plea of self-defence, as it is doubtful that the court would assess the amount of force used (stabbing the officer with a weapon) as being reasonable in the circumstances.
Option E is correct. The court must first consider whether the use of force was necessary at all; and this will be subjectively assessed based on the defendant’s beliefs. If so, the amount of force used must be reasonable in the circumstances and this is assessed objectively by the court. In this instance, the man stabbed the officer who came to check on his welfare and did not appear threatening, with a pre-prepared weapon. It is unlikely such action would be regarded as reasonable.
Option A is wrong as the man’s psychiatric condition is not relevant to whether or not he used reasonable force in self-defence – R v Martin (Anthony) [2001].
Option B is wrong because, although the man will be judged on the facts as he honestly and genuinely believed them to be, the court is not obliged to accept his evidence. Section 76(4) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that the reasonableness or otherwise of the belief is relevant to the question of whether the defendant actually held it. In this instance, there was no reason why the man thought the officer would attack him – the officer had merely entered his cell to check on the man’s welfare in an unthreatening manner.
Option C is wrong as the man can rely upon his mistake that he was under attack even if it is unreasonable, provided that he honestly believed it – R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987]. However, if the defendant’s mistake was an unreasonable one to make, the jury may conclude that the belief was not honestly held.
Option D is wrong as this is the test for the ‘householder’ defence. In this situation, s.76(6) would apply and the degree of force would be regarded as unreasonable if it were ‘disproportionate’ – not grossly disproportionate.
Quick Q:
The defendant is on holiday by the coast. He and a friend decide to go out partying at a club which is next to the harbour. The defendant drinks alcohol before going to the event and then, after he arrives, he takes some illegal pills. Not long afterwards he becomes ‘manic’ and feels sick. His friend is concerned that the defendant has reacted badly to the pills and decides to take him home. As they leave the venue and are walking along the harbour, the defendant becomes irrational in his behaviour and is convinced that the friend is a drug dealer trying to kidnap him. The defendant is terrified and pushes the friend forcefully away from him. The friend overbalances and falls into the harbour where he is swept away by the sea and drowns.
The defendant said later that he has no recollection of the evening at all and that he did not know what he was doing. The defendant is shocked at the friend’s death. He is adamant that he would never have acted in this way if he had not taken the drugs.
Which statement best describes if the defendant can raise intoxication as a defence to a charge in relation to the friend’s death?
The defendant can rely upon his intoxication for murder but not for unlawful act manslaughter.
Option E is correct. The defendant can rely on his voluntary intoxication for murder because this is an offence of specific intent and he lacks the relevant mens rea as he has no recollection of the incident at all. However, he would be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter as this is a crime of basic intent and the mens rea is satisfied by the defendant becoming voluntarily intoxicated.
Incorrect answer: The defendant will be liable for murder as it is a crime of basic intent and voluntary intoxication cannot be used to show a lack of mens rea.
Because: Option B is wrong because the defendant will be able to rely on his voluntary intoxication for murder as it is a crime of specific (not basic) intent.
Quick Q:
One evening, a woman and her partner take part in a drinking game, during which they consume two large bottles of whiskey and gin. When she wakes up the following morning, the woman is shocked to discover that her partner is dead in bed next to her. The partner has been stabbed with a large kitchen knife.
The woman immediately telephones the police who carry out an investigation. The forensic evidence shows that the woman’s fingerprints are on the knife and there was no sign of a forced entry to her flat. As a consequence the woman is charged with the partner’s murder.
In interview, the woman tells the police that she was so drunk that she has no memory of anything that occurred the previous evening and would have been incapable of forming a desire to kill or seriously harm her partner.
Assuming the woman’s account to the police is truthful, can the woman rely on the defence of voluntary intoxication to a charge of murder?
Yes, because murder is a crime of specific intent and the woman was so drunk, she could not form the necessary intention for the mens rea of murder at the time of the killing.
Option B is the correct option because murder is a crime of specific intent; thus, the defence of voluntary intoxication is available to the woman as she was so affected by drink that she was incapable of forming the intention to kill or cause really GBH at the time of the killing.
If the woman is charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm can she successfully rely on the defence of self-defence (even though she was voluntarily intoxicated)?
No, because her mistaken belief in the need to defend herself with force was caused by her voluntary intoxication.
Option A is correct. For the defence of self-defence to succeed the defendant must use reasonable force in the circumstances. She may be judged based on her honest, albeit mistaken belief as to the circumstances - R v Williams (Gladstone) [1984]. However, where the mistaken belief in the circumstances and the need to defend herself is due to her voluntary intoxication, the defence of self-defence must fail - R v O’Grady [1987]. Here the woman mistakenly believed she was facing an attack due to her voluntary intoxication. In the circumstances, there was no need for her to defend herself with force and the defence will fail.
Basic vs specific intent:
Specific intent refers to offences where intention is necessary to satisfy mens rea. Basic intent refers to offences where either intention or recklessness will satisfy mens rea.
A man is prescribed a drug by his doctor to alleviate his depression. However, rather than having the desired effect, the drug causes the man to become agitated and aggressive. The man wants to change his medication and makes an appointment with his doctor to discuss the matter. When he tries catch the bus, the driver refuses to allow the man to board as he is concerned about his behaviour. The man become increasingly agitated and then launches himself at the driver, stabbing and seriously wounding him. The man says that although he deliberately stabbed the driver, he would not have done this had he not taken the prescribed drug.
Is the man guilty of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent?
A-Yes, because although he was involuntarily intoxicated, the man had the mens rea as he deliberately stabbed the driver.
B-No, because the man was involuntarily intoxicated and he did not have the mens rea for the assault.
C-No, because the man was voluntarily intoxicated and he can rely on voluntary intoxication as wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent is a crime of specific intent.
D-No, because the man was voluntarily intoxicated, and he can rely on voluntary intoxication as wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent is a crime of basic intent.
E-Yes, because the man was involuntarily intoxicated and would not have acted in this way had he not taken the prescribed drug.
Option A is correct. The man was involuntarily intoxicated as a result of the unexpected side-effects of the drug (R v Hardie [1985]) and involuntary intoxication can provide a defence to crimes of specific or basic intent, but only if the defendant lacked the mens rea. On the facts, the man deliberately stabbed the bus driver and so he did not lack the mens rea.
Option B is wrong because although the man was involuntarily intoxicated, he did have the mens rea for wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
Option C is wrong because the man was involuntarily intoxicated - R v Hardie (above).
Option D is wrong because the man was involuntarily intoxicated (R v Hardie above) and wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent is a crime of specific intent not basic intent.
Option E is wrong because, although the man was involuntarily intoxicated (R v Hardie above), on the facts, he accepts that he stabbed the man deliberately, so his comment that he would not have done this had he not taken the prescribed drug is irrelevant here. He acted deliberately and so he still had the mens rea.
A student is living with her boyfriend who is studying to be a doctor. The student has an important assessment due and she is suffering from panic attacks and severe anxiety. On the morning of the assessment, the student becomes very anxious. Her boyfriend gives her some drugs that had previously been prescribed to him after his father died. He assures the student that the effect of the drugs will be to calm her down and they are commonly used for this purpose. Unfortunately, the student has an unusual and adverse reaction to the drugs, so they cause her to be become aggressive instead.
When she catches the bus to her university, she gets into an argument with another passenger. She punches the passenger in the face, breaking his nose. The student has no recollection of the incident at all.
Which statement best describes the student’s criminal liability for assault occasioning actual bodily harm?
A-The student is guilty as she is voluntarily intoxicated because she took drugs which were not prescribed to her.
B-The student is guilty as she is voluntarily intoxicated because she was reckless in taking her boyfriend’s drugs.
C-The student is not guilty as her involuntary intoxication caused her to lack mens rea.
D-The student is not guilty as involuntary intoxication is always a complete defence.
E-The student is not guilty as she is voluntarily intoxicated because she took a non-dangerous drug which had an unusual side effect.
The correct option is C. The student is involuntarily intoxicated because she took a non-dangerous or prescribed drug which led to unpredictable and aggressive behaviour that would not normally be expected. The drugs are commonly used to calm people down but, in this instance, they caused the student to become aggressive. Involuntary intoxication is a defence if the defendant lacks mens rea and, at the time of the assault, the student had ‘no recollection of the incident at all’.
Options A and B are both wrong as the student is involuntarily intoxicated on the evidence provided. Although the jury must consider whether the student was reckless in taking the drugs, option B is not the best answer as they are likely to conclude that she was not. The drugs are commonly used to calm people down, her boyfriend who is studying to be a doctor was the one who informed her of this, and they were prescribed (albeit to her boyfriend).
Option D is wrong as involuntary intoxication is not ‘always’ a complete defence – it is only so if the defendant lacks mens rea.
Option E is wrong as it incorrectly attributes the test for involuntary intoxication to voluntary intoxication.
