Defences: Duress, Necessity & Intoxication Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Does necessity exist as a defence?

A

Dudley & Stephens (1884); Per Lord Coleridge, “the absolute divorce of law from morality would be of fatal consequence, and such divorce would follow if the temptation to murder in this case were to be held by law an absolute defence of it…it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice [one’s life]. War is full of instances in which it is a man’s due not to live but to die.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Subsequent developments - a limited development of a defence of necessity

A
  1. infant life (Preservation Act 1929 s.1; a doctor may act in good faith to preserve the life of a mother even if the baby dies
  2. Road traffic regulation Acct 1984 s.87: Emergency vehicles and speed limits
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Necessity in case law - medical situations

A

Re. F (Mental patient sterilisation) (1990); “Upon what principle can medical treatment be justified when given without consent? We are searching for a principle upon which, in limited circumstances, recognition may be given to a need, in the interests of the patient, that treatment should be given to him in circumstances where he is (temporarily or permanently) disabled from consenting to it. It is this criterion of a need which points to the principle of necessity as providing justification.” Lord Goff

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Necessity in case law - Re. A (Conjoined Twins) [2011] 4 All ER 961

A

Per War LJ: “the law must allow an escape through choosing the lesser of the two evils”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Necessity a possible defence from criminal damage?

A

Greenpeace case (2000)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Duress of Circumstances = necessity

A

Shayler (2001)
Conway (1989)
Martin (1989)
Pommell (1995)

Does it always apply?
Quayle (2005)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Willer (1986)

A

Circumstances dictate the crime rather than a person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

DPP v Lynch (1975)

A

Dress; a concession to human frailty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Duress; a complete defence except:

A

Murder - Howe (1987)
Attempted murder - Gotts (1991)
Possibly Treason - Steane (1947)
Self induced duress - Fitzpatrick (1977)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Voluntary exposure to duress - self induced duress

A

Hassan (1995)
Ali (1995)
Sharp (1987)
Shepherd (1987)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

R v Hassan [2005] UKHL 22 per Lord Bingham at para 18:

A

“Where duress is established, it does not ordinarily operate to negative any legal ingredient of the crime which the defendant has committed. Nor is it now regarded as justifying the conduct of the defendant, as has in the past been suggested… Duress is now properly to be regarded as a defence which, if established, excuses what would otherwise be criminal conduct:”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Leading case on duress by threats

A

Hassan (2005) HL - Defined in AG v Whelan (1993) – D told to commit an offence & subject to “threats of immediate death, or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary powers of human resistance”. Duress is a matter for the jury – whether the threat was sufficiently serious to warrant the defence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Duress - elements: Hassan (2005) HL

A

Specified crime: Cole
Threat of death or injury: Valderama-vega
Threat of violence to D/another person he has resp for: Matrin (wife), Conway (passenger)
Immediate threat operation on D’s mind at the time: Hudson & Taylor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Graham Test (Approved by HL in Howe)

A

1) Did d act because he reasonably elieved he had a good cause to fear?
2) Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing D’s characteristics, have responded in the same way?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Threat of death or serious injury

A
  • “pressure” is not duress Dao (2013)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Immediate threat

A

Abdul Hussain (1999)

17
Q

Imm threat, did D fail to seek police protection against the threat?

A

Batchelor (2018)

18
Q

Graham (1982)

A

Threat must be so great as to overbear the ordinary powers of human resistance

19
Q

Characteristic’s to be taken into account

A

Bowen (1997) - age, sex, pregnancy, serious physical disability, recognised mental illness or psychiatric condition
Flatt (1996)

20
Q

Intoxication - involuntary

A

Can D form mens rea?
Yes: Guilty (Kingston) - a drunken intent is still intent
No: Not Guilty

21
Q

Intoxciation - Voluntary

A

Was it Dutch courage?
Yes: Guilty - AG NI v Gallagher; D formed MR before getting intoxicated
No; Is the offence of basic or specifi intent?
Basic: Guilty - D reckless in becoming intoxicated
Specific; Not Guilty - Majewski

22
Q

Involuntary intoxication methods

A
  1. Prescription durgs
  2. Unexpected drug reaction
  3. Laced/spiked food/drink
23
Q

Voluntary intoxication involves:

A

D chose to take drugs/drink alcohol

24
Q

Involuntary intoxication; can D form mens rea?

A

Yes: Guilty - Kingston
No: Not guilty

25
Q

Spiked or Laced Drinks - can D form the mens rea?

A

Kingston (1994) - “drugged intent is still intent”

26
Q

Hardie (1985)

A

Unexpected drug reaction - “Dangerous & non-dangerous” drugs

27
Q

Allen (1988)

A

Underestimating strength of an intoxicant

28
Q

Basic intent

A

Mens rea can be satisfied by recklessness/gross negligence

Includes:
- Manslaughter - lipman
- s.20 malicious wounding/GBH. S.47 ABH, common assault and battery
- Rape
- Criminal damage

29
Q

Specific intent

A

Requires proof of actual intention (direct/oblique)

Includes:
- Murder - Lipman
- S.18 GBH/Wounding with intent
- Theft - Majewski
- Burglary & Robbery
- Arson/criminal damager with intent to endanger life

30
Q

DPP v Majewski (1977)

A

Voluntary intoxication - key case

31
Q

Lipman (1970)

A

Murder = Specific intent
Manslaughter = Basic intent

32
Q

Statutory defence - genuine, mistaken belief…

A

…Jaggard v Dickinson (1981)