General Defences Flashcards
the can intoxication negate mens rea?
yes!
when can intoxication operate to negate the mens rea?
- in any crime where the intoxication is caused by drink or drugs taken involuntarily.
- in any crime where intoxication is caused by drugs taken voluntarily but in bona fide pursuance of medical treatment.
- caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily.
- where specific intent is required.
involuntary intoxication-when does it apply?
e.g being spiked.
If the D is aware they are drinking but is mistaken as to the strength, this is not involuntary intoxication.
voluntary intoxication and basic intent crimes (recklessness)?
jury to consider whether the D would have seen the risk had they not been intoxicated.
would they have formed the MR if sober?
intoxication and other defences?
self defnece- cannot rely on a drunken mistake as to the need to use self defence.
LOC AND DR- can still be pleaded if intoxicated.
Consent- If jury are satisified they consented or D believed v consented.
Statutory defence- honest belief.
voluntary intoxicated by dangerous drugs/alcohol test?
would the D have formed the MR if sober?
what are the elements for consent?
- victim consented or the D believed the victim consented.
- the offence is one which a victim can consent to.
when is consent a defence to a an offence gainst the person?
general rule is it is only available for assault and battery.
(can be available for ABH or worse but only if the D intended to only commit a battery with the consent of the victim and did not see the risk of ABH)
what are the general exceptions for consent and offences against the person?
- medical treatement,
- sport.
horseplay. - tattooing, body piercing and personal adornment and
- sexual gratification- person cannot consent to the infliction of harm that results in ABH or more for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification.
situation with body modification and consent?
cannot consent to the removal of an ear, removal of a nipple and the diviison of a tongue
chastisement of a child?
- courts look at the nature and context of the parent’s behaviour, its duration, the physical and mental consequneces for the child and reason why punishment was inflicted.
two reasons for acting in self defence?
- protection of life and limb of yourself or antoher from imminent attack.
- in the protection of property.
test for self defence?
- defendant honestly believed that the use of force was necessary and
- the level of force the defendant used in response was objectively reasonable in the circumstances as the D believed them to be.
FOR THE PROSECUTION TO DISPORVE THE D WAS ACTING IN SELF DEFENCE.
Can anticipatory self defence be a defence?
yes, he does not have to wait to be attacked.
what is the test for non householder cases?
objective test- whether the D hoeneslty beleived in the circumstances were such as to require the use of force to defend himself from an attack or threatened attack.
what is the test for self-defence householder cases?
force will not be reasonable if it was grossly disproportionate.
1 jury must asked if the force was gorslly disproportioate in the circumstances as the D believed them to be.
2. if it was not, must ask if the level of force was reasonable.
how to be classed as a householder case?
must be protecting themselves or another.
who is the burden of proof on for self defence?
prosecution must still prove D’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while the D must raise enough evidence to suggest self-defence applies, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt it does not.
who does the burden of proof lie with for diminished responsibility?
D has burden, standard is on a balance of probabilities.
