Defences and basics Flashcards
What is the golden thread
Duty of prosecution to prove D is guilty not for D to prove innocence - presumption of innocence
Which defences reverse the burden of proof
Diminished responsibility and insanity - balance of probabilities
What is the evidential burden
Duty to make issues live in the case. No need to prove, just introduce evidence
How to establish causation
Causation in fact - but for
Causation in law- operating and substantial cause of death. Ongoing at time of harm. Doesn’t need to be only cause, just A cause. More than slight link.
Intervening act?
Possible intervening acts
Thin skull rules
Natural events
Acts of V
Acts of third people
What is the thin skull rule
Take v as you find them. Unusual condition won’t break chain of causation
Does a natural event break the chain of causation
If not reasonably foreseeable then it breaks the chain
Can V break the chain of causation
If V causes own injury through free and voluntary act the chain is broken. If V not acting freely then ask was Vs act a reasonably foreseeable consequence of ads act. If yes then D cause Vs injury if no D didn’t cause it
Can the act of a third party break the chain of causation
Free, deliberate and informed act of third party can break chain but a reasonable act in self defence does not
Is act of third party normal or extraordinary ?
What is the doctrine of transferred malice
Allows mens rea to be transferred from intended v to unintended v
What is direct intention
A result D wanted or aimed to produce
What is indirect intention
D did not want or aim to produce it but did foresee the result as very likely to occur as a result of their actions
What is the woolin test for intention
Is the result a virtually certain consequence of Ds actions?
Did d realise it was a virtually certain consequence
Does the jury decided it is appropriate to find intent?
Need yes to every question for intent
Test for recklessness
D foresaw the risk of harm being cause by their acts and decided to act anyway (subjective)
Ds taking of the risk was unjustified (objective)
What is strict liability
When one element of the actus reus has no men’s rea so fault is irrelevant
What is absolute liability
When the whole offence has no mens rea
What is maliciousness
D intended to do the particular type of harm or foresaw that it might be done
Defence
Insanity Automatism Voluntary intoxication Age Mistake Consent Self defence Duress Necessity Consent
Is age a defence
Must be 10 or over
Is mistake a defence
If the mistake prevents the forming of the mens rea
Requirements to rely on self defence as a defence?
Force used must be reasonable in the circumstances AS D SEES THEM - doesn’t need to be a reasonable belief and can rely on mistaken belief unless due to intoxication
To prevent crime, defend yourself, another person or property from attack or threat of attack
Amount of force used is assessed objectively- irrelevant what D thought was reasonable
Is voluntary intoxication a defence
Never
Specific intent crimes- did D have mens rea? If so drunk they don’t know what they’re doing they might not have mens rea
Basic intent crimes- would D have MR when sober? If yes then MR is formed. Would need to show they wouldn’t foresee risk when sober
Cannot use as defence if Dutch courage
What is a basic intent crime
Require only proof of recklessness
What is a crime of specific intent
Crimes which required proof of intent
What is automatism
D has no control over body due to external factor and cannot be blamed for that state
Other names for automatism and insanity
Automatism - non insane automatism - external
Insanity - insane automatism - internal
Evidence needed to rely on insanity as a defence
Insanity at time of crime- 2 medical practitioners, at least 1 approved to give evidence
Requirements to rely on defence of insanity
Defect of reason from disease of mind so did not know nature and quality of acts
OR
Defect of reason from disease of mind and did know nature and quality of act but did not know what he was doing was wrong
What does it mean to not know nature and quality of acts
Means D did not know what he was physically doing or what the consequences were
What is a defect of reasoning
D was deprived of the power of reason
What is a disease of the mind
An internal disorder that impaired Ds mental functions of reason, memory and understanding
Which crimes can the defence of insanity be pleased to
All crimes
Burden of proof for insanity defence
On D to balance of probabilities
Result if insanity defence successful
Not guilty by reason of insanity - disposal order MHA