General Defences Flashcards

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

R v Williams (SD)

A

D may be mistaken in their belief that force was necisary

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

R v Press and Tompson (SD)

A

A genuine but delusional belif will be cosnidered

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

R v Hatton (SD)

A

Intoxicated mistake - no defense

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

R v Hussain (SD)

A

D not in iminent danger at time.

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

Beckford v The Queen (SD)

A

D need not wait to be attacked.

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

ATg’s ref No.2 1985 (SD)

A

May have provoked the attcak - so long as it was not in order to ‘incite violence’

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

R v Rashford (SD)

A

Prepared Defense still self-defense.

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

R v Bird (SD)

A

No duty to retreat.

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

S43 Crime and Courts Act 2013

A

Housholders may use disproportionate force so long as it is not disproportionate.

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

Collins (SD)

A

1) Was the degree of force grossly disproportionat?
2) Was the force used reasonable based on the Circumstances?

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

R v Graham (DoT)

A

1) believed he faced a risk of death or personal injury.
2) a areasonable person i nthe same circumstances woul dhave responded in the same way.

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

R v Valderama-Vegas (Dot)

A

threat to reveal personal information is not sufficient.

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

R v Cole (DoT)

A

Must commit offence as nominated by the Duresssor.

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

R v Hassan (DoT)

A

Threat must be unavioudable ‘any deley will be deteremental’ + no deffense due to voluntary association.

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

R v Gill (DoT)

A

No defence as sade avenue for escape.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

R v Howe (1987)
R v Gotts (1992) (Dot)

A

No defense to murder or to attempted murder.

17
Q

R v Cairns (Dot)

A

Threat need not exist in actuality.

18
Q

R v Willer (DoC)

A

Compelled to drive on pavement in the Circumstance

19
Q

R v Matrian (DoC)

A

Same tests used as DoT

20
Q

R v Dudely and Stephens (N)

A

No defense to murder

21
Q

R v Wison (DoT)

A

No Accomidation for Age

22
Q

Re:A (N)

A

Lawfull for doctors to operate without consent

23
Q

Re:F (N)

A

Splitting of conjoined twins saved one but killed another.

24
Q

R v Pretty (C)

A

Renders force lawfull - does not apply to murder.

25
Q

R v Slingsbury (C)

A

Can be a defense to UAM.

26
Q

Olubuojia (C)

A

Submission ≠ Consent

27
Q

R v Tabussum (C)

A

Deception as to Identity - Consent not valid.

28
Q

Wilson and Pringle (C)

A

Inplied consent - Jostling of everyday life.

29
Q

R v Barnes (C)

A

defense if injury within the normal rules - only really serious injury sould be delt with outside.

30
Q

AG’s Ref No.6 1980 (C)

A

exept 1) sport 2) corrction 3) surgery 4) dangerous exhibition

31
Q

R v Brown (C)

A

Cannot consent to GBH - Sadomasichism

32
Q

R v Wilson

A

Branding - consent was valid - not in public interest to criminalise.