Defences Flashcards
What is the M’Naghten rule?
Orig rules for insanity defence after trying to kill MP
The M’Naghten rule establishes criteria for determining whether a defendant can be excused from criminal liability due to insanity.
What was the significance of Clarke’s case?
Defect of reason caused D to forget to pay at supermarket
This case highlights how a defect of reason can impact a person’s ability to understand their actions.
What did the Kemp case establish regarding mental health?
Heart attack caused blackout which was a disease of the mind
Kemp’s case illustrates that physical conditions can be linked to mental health issues in legal contexts.
In Sullivan’s case, what was classified as a disease of the mind?
Epilepsy was a disease of the mind, causing fits
This case emphasizes that certain medical conditions can affect a person’s mental state.
What was determined in Hennessy’s case regarding diabetes?
Not taking insulin leads to high blood sugar if diabetic, this was disease of the mind
This case illustrates the legal implications of failing to manage a chronic medical condition.
What does Quick’s case indicate about automatism?
Not eating enough after taking too much insulin is automatism caused by external medicine
Quick’s case shows that external factors can lead to automatism in legal defenses.
What was the ruling in Burgess’s case regarding sleepwalking?
Sleepwalking caused by disorder was a disease of the mind when attacking V
This case sets a precedent for sleep disorders being recognized as mental health issues in legal contexts.
What was the conclusion in Coley’s case regarding intoxication?
Cannabis was an external factor and D was voluntarily intoxicated, this is reckless
Coley’s case highlights the legal consequences of voluntary intoxication.
What does Oye’s case illustrate about understanding actions?
NGRI as D didn’t understand what he was doing in cafe affray
This case emphasizes the importance of awareness in legal defenses for insanity.
In Windle’s case, why was there no insanity defense?
No insanity defence as D’s words showed he knew he’d broken the law
Windle’s case establishes that knowledge of wrongdoing can negate an insanity defense.
What example did Hill v Baxter provide regarding automatism?
Gave obiter example of being attacked by bees as automatism
This case illustrates a hypothetical scenario of how external factors can lead to automatism.
What did R v T establish about PTSD?
PTSD caused by rape is automatism as caused by an external experience/attack
R v T sets a precedent for recognizing PTSD as a valid cause of automatism in legal defenses.
What was determined in A-G Reference No 2 of 1992 regarding driving?
Driving lorry without awareness isn’t a total loss of control for automatism
This case clarifies the parameters for what constitutes a total loss of control in automatism defenses.
What does Bailey’s case indicate about self-induced automatism?
Not eating enough after insulin is self-induced automatism, leading to recklessness
Bailey’s case emphasizes the concept of self-induced automatism in legal contexts.
What was the finding in Hardie’s case regarding valium?
Self-induced valium side effects were not recklessness as D didn’t realise risk
Hardie’s case suggests that not all self-induced effects are considered reckless if the individual is unaware of the risks.
DPP v Beard
D too drunk to form intent to kill, defence to murder
A-G NI v Gallagher
D had mens rea for murder before drinking for Dutch courage, no defence
Majewski
Excessive drinking & drugs was reckless so no defence to pub fight
Kingston
D wanted to commit abuse even though he’d been spiked, no defence
Lipman
Drugs meant D thought he was attacking snakes, so no specific intent to murder a human
Hatton
D couldn’t use self defence as he was drunk and overestimated threat
Jaggard v Dickinson
Could use mistake defence when smashed window thinking it was friend’s house, even due to drink
Hussain
No self-defence as the burglars were running away from house
Collins v SOSJ
6 mins headlock would likely be reasonable force as not ‘grossly disproportionate’
Gladstone Williams
D genuinely thought youth was being attacked, so could use self-defence
Howe
Can’t use duress for murder, should’ve refused to kill V
Gotts
Can’t use duress for attempted murder when trying to kill mum at dad’s request
Valderrama-Vega
Threat to expose homosexuality made threats even more serious
Graham
Two stage test for duress: was D compelled to act due to threat & would reasonable person do the same?
Gill
No duress as D could’ve alerted help rather than steal lorry
Hudson and Taylor
Duress as girls reasonably didn’t go to police after threats
Cole
No duress for robberies as D just told to pay debt back
Shepherd
Duress when threatened by non-violent gangmates
Sharp
No duress since self-induced, gangmates were predictably violent already
Willer
Duress of circumstances caused D to drive recklessly on pavement
Conway
Duress of circumstances caused D to drive away from (mistaken) thugs
Martin
Duress of circumstances caused D to drive when banned to avoid wife’s suicide threats
Pommell
Duress of circumstances caused by taking gun from another man
Dudley and Stephens
Necessity not a defence for cannibalism
Re A
Necessity a defence to murder for separation of twins
Donovan
Consent can be used as a defence to minor harm for sexual pleasure
Tabassum
No real consent as he lied about the reasons for breast exams
Olugboja
No real consent when V submitted to rape when scared
Dica
Consenting to sex without protection is not the same as consenting to HIV
Barnes
Only convict for sports injuries if far beyond rules of sport (we consent generally to risks)
A-G Reference No 6 of 1990
Can’t consent to fist fighting in street, not allowed for public policy. Can consent if exceptions apply
Brown
Couldn’t consent to serious harm as sexual pleasure has no utility for society
Wilson
Could consent to branding as similar to tattooing, which has social utility
Aitken
Setting fire to RAF uniform was just consensual horseplay
Sheehan and Moore
Drunk intent is still intent
Harris
Can be a defence if suffering from mental disorder due to previous intoxication
O’Grady
Drunken mistake cannot justify unreasonable force in self-defence
Beckford
Pre-emptive strike was allowed when officer thought suspect was shooting at him
Bird
No duty to retreat, can be willing to fight to defend
Martin
Shooting in the dark was not necessary as threat no longer there
Hasan
Gave 6 part test for duress, D worked for violent drug dealer
Hammond
Duress threat must be imminent or immediate
Bowen
Low IQ irrelevant characteristic for Graham test
Re F
Necessity allowed for sterilisation of woman who lacked capacity to consent
