General Defences

Question 0

Automatism

Answer 0

1. AG Reference (no 2 of 1992)
   Automatism requires total destruction of voluntary control on the defendants part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not sufficient.
2. Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland
   Psychomotor epilepsy is not automatism, but amounts to insanity.

Question 1

Insanity

Answer 1

1. Rule: R v McNaghten’s
   - Presumption of sanity.
   - proof that D suffers from disease of the mind, that he does not know what he is doing
2. R v Kemp
   Hardening of arteries is disease of mind. The law only considers the state of the mind, not how the accused got there.
3. R v Quick and Paddison
   Mental disorder caused by external factor (insulin) gives rise to the defence of automatism.
4. R v Sullivan
   Epilepsy is disease of the mind, therefore insanity.

Question 2

Intoxication

Answer 2

1. Sookal v State
   Test is whether D is so affected by intoxication, that he do not have the necessary intent and that he does not know what he is doing.
2. AG for Northern Ireland v Gallacher
   Voluntary drinking to give themselves dutch courage is no defence.
3. DPP v Majewski
   Intoxication is no defence for crimes with basic intent
4. R v Kingston
   Drugged intent is still an intent.
5. R v Allen
   Intoxication is still voluntary even if it is stronger than expected.

Question 3

Public and Private Defence

Criminal Law Act 1967 s 3

Answer 3

1. AG Reference (no 2 of 1984)
   Self defence can be allowed for offences based on possession in preparation of attacks, provided the possession ceases when the danger of the attack is no longer imminent.

2. R v Williams
Mistaken self defence
a. Proof of unlawfulness of conduct.
b. subjective test for proving mistake
c. Objective test as to whether the mistake was reasonable or not.

Question 4

Public and private defence

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s 78

Answer 4

1. Palmer v R.
   No self defence where excessive force is being used.
2. R v Beckford
   Test for self defence:
   Person may use such force as it is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in defence of himself or another.

Question 5

Duress of circumstances

Answer 5

1. R v Dudley & Stephens
   Cannibalism case. Necessity is no excuse for murder.
2. R v Pommel
   Availability of defence of necessity depends on D desisting from the commission of the offence as soon as D reasonably can.
3. R v Rodger
   Necessity does not depend on personal characteristics and vulnerability of the offender.
4. Re A (children) (conjoined twins surgical separation)
   Allowed as long as purpose it not to kill one of the twins, but to make one live.