Defences

Question 1

R v Sullivan

Answer 1

S had an epileptic seizure during which he attacked his friend. Lord Diplock therefore drew an internal/external distinction.
Automatism- reflex action, spasms and results in complete acquittal.
Insane Automatism- sleepwalking, epileptic seizure and results in a ‘special verdict’
Defence - Failure of Proof - Denial of acts reus or mens rea

Question 2

M’Naghten Rules [1843]

Answer 2

Every man is presumed sane. The burden of proving a defence of insanity is therefore on the defendant.
A defect of reason, caused by a disease of the mind, as he did not know the nature/quality of act/what was doing was wrong.
Defence - Failure of Proof - Denial of actus reus or mens rea

Question 3

R v Kemp [1957]

Answer 3

Disease of the body can be a disease of the mind if it impacts the mind.
Arteriosclerosis, caused a state of unconsciousness during which he attacked his wife with a hammer.
Disease of body can be disease of mind- insanity, if the disease has an effect upon the mind.
Defence - Failure of Proof - Denial of acts reus or mens rea

Question 4

R v Graham

Answer 4

Duress. Lord Lane, the defendant must show that D committed the crime because of threats which led to a reasonable fear of death of GBH.
A reasonable person with the same characteristics would have acted the same.
Defence - Substantive Defences - Actus reus and mens rea satisfied

Question 5

R v Hassan

Answer 5

Must be a threat of death or serious injury made to D or someone close to D. D’s perception must be assessed objectively- defence will fail where D associates with others whom he knows r ought to have known may subject him to compulsion through threats.
Defence - Substantive Defences - Actus reus and mens rea satisfied

Question 6

R v Dudley Stephens [1884]

Answer 6

Courts are reluctant to use the defence of necessity. Not a defence to murder.
Defence - Substantive Defences - Actus reus and mens rea satisfied

Question 7

Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2000]

Answer 7

Necessity is not usually a defence to murder, only in very limited and exceptional circumstances.
Defence - Substantive Defences - Actus reus and mens rea satisfied

Question 8

Palmer v R [1971]

Answer 8

D honestly believes it is necessary to use force (subjective test). Uses force proportionate to the circumstances (objective test)
Defence - Substantive Defences - Actus reus and mens rea satisfied

Question 9

DPP v Pipe [2012]

Answer 9

Necessity as justification- acting in the interests of another.
Defence - Necessity.