General defences Flashcards
What type of defence is intoxication?
It is a general defence which means it is available to almost any crime.
What question will the Court ask regarding whether intoxication has negated the mens rea of an offence?
The Court will ask did the D form the mens rea even though intoxicated:
-If yes, a drunken intent is still intent and the D will be criminally liable: R v Kingston (1995)
-If no, the D lacks the mens rea and will be acquitted e.g. D was so intoxicated they did not know what they were doing
In what ways can intoxication operate to negate the mens rea?
Intoxication is caused by drink or drugs take involuntarily
Intoxication is caused by drugs taken voluntarily but in pursuance of medical treatment
In any crime where the intoxication is caused by non-dangerous drugs taken voluntarily
In crimes where specific intent is required
Can voluntary intoxication be used as a defence to a charge of basic intent?
DPP v Majewski (1977): voluntary intoxication can be a defence to a charge of specific intent, where the D’s intoxication negated the mens rea but it cannot be a defence to a charge of basic intent.
What three points should be considered in relation to whether intoxication will negate the mens rea of the alleged offence?
- Is the D voluntarily intoxicated or involuntarily intoxicated?
- Is the intoxicant a dangerous alcohol/drug or a non-dangerous drug?
- Is it a crime of basic or specific intent?
What is a basic intent offence?
Where the D could be convicted on the basis of recklessness as to the consequences, or where no foresight as to the consequences is required e.g. battery.
What is a specific intent offence?
Where intention is only the form of mens rea available e.g. murder.
If the D makes a drunken mistake as to the need to use self-defence, can they rely on that mistake?
No, this is not possible.
Is intoxication a bar to a plea of loss of control/diminished responsibility?
Intoxication is no bar to a plea of loss of control or diminished responsibility.
What is the test to be able to rely on self-defence?
A D is entitled to rely on any of the defence if:
-The D honestly believed that the use of force was necessary (the trigger); and
-the level of force the D used in response was objectively reasonable in the circumstances as the D believed them to be (the response)
Who does the burden of proof rest with in self-defence cases?
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, who must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant’s use of force was not a lawful act of self-defence.
What is the level of reasonableness required for self-defence in non-householder cases?
Force will not be reasonable if it was disproportionate.
What is the level of reasonableness required for self-defence in householder cases?
Force will not be reasonable if it was grossly disproportionate.
What two questions will the jury be asked in relation to the trigger for householder self-defence cases?
- Was the force grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as D believed them to be? If it was, there can be no defence.
- If not, was the level of force reasonable? The jury should take into account that the level of force should not be weighed to a nicety and that if the D believed in a moment of unexpected anguish that they were using reasonable force, that is very good evidence that the force was reasonable.
What circumstances should the jury consider in determining whether the degree of force used by a householder is reasonable, as set out in R v Ray (Steven) (2017)?
R v Ray (Steven) (2017) listed circumstances which the jury should consider in determining whether the degree of force used by a householder was reasonable:
-the shock of coming upon an intruder
-the time of day
-the vulnerability of the occupants e.g. children
