General Defences

Question 1

Specific defences v general defences

Answer 1

Specific: Only for a particular crime
General: used for any crime, including murder - general defences result in acquittal

Question 2

Infancy:

Answer 2

The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s50

- conclusively presumed no child under 10 can be guilty of an offence (cannot be rebutted)

Question 3

Walters v Lunt

Answer 3

An adult instigating a child under 10 to commit such an act is a principal not a secondary party

Question 4

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Answer 4

s34:

- abolished 10-14 rule of not being able to commit an offence

Question 5

Mistake:

Answer 5

Mistake as to the law is NO defence - R v Reid

If crime is one of strict liability then there is no defence R v Tolson

Question 6

R v Scarlett

Answer 6

Facts: -Drunkard was ejected from a pub and hit his head and died
-Pub owner was charged with manslaughter

Judgment: Not guilty

Facts: Insufficient evidence to demonstrate appellant had used excessive force so no unlawful act established
Mistake applied

Question 7

Consent:

Answer 7

Two areas where this is relevant:

• Crimes such as rape and assault where consent would mean the AR of the crime is not present
• Crimes such as murder and unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged 13-16 where consent is not a defence

Question 8

Intoxicated:

Answer 8

Not strictly a defence but impacts on presence or absence of mens rea
-Split into voluntary and involuntary intoxication

Question 9

Involuntary Intoxication:

Answer 9

Can be used as a defence to crimes requiring mens rea
Not restricted to intoxication from alcohol
Not a defence if you know you’re drinking/taking drugs but misjudge the strength - R v Allen

Question 10

R v Kingston

Answer 10

Facts: 15 yr old boy was drugged without D’s knowledge
D was then drugged by P and whilst intoxicated the pair comitted sexual acts on the boy
D was sexually attracted to children but never acted on compulsions before
D argued he would not have succumbed if not intoxicated

Judgment: Guilty

L.P Drunken intent is still intent
-involuntary intoxication is a defence unless the defendant nevertheless still has the required MR

Question 11

Voluntary Intoxication:

Answer 11

DPP v Majewski:
- Evidence of self-induced intoxication will negate mens rea and thus act as a defence for crimes of specific intent but not for crimes of basic intent

Question 12

A-G for NI v Gallagher

Answer 12

Can D get intoxicated voluntarily in anticipation of committing a specfic intent crime so as to use the defence later -> No mens rea is formed before

Question 13

Insanity:

Answer 13

1. ) Can be used as a denial of mens rea

2. ) Used when MR and AR have been established

Question 14

M’Naughten

Answer 14

Everyone is pressumed sane unless at time of commititing offence:

1. ) Suffering from a disease of the mind
2. ) From which he was labouring under a defect of reason
3. ) So as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
4. ) OR if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong

Question 15

Bratty:

Answer 15

“any mental disorder which has manifested in violence and is prone to recur”

• > Burgess: accepted definition but excluded the need for it to recur
• > Sullivan: epilepsy was a disease of the mind

Question 16

Successful plea on insanity:

Answer 16

Not guilty but insane -> fixed hospital order

Question 17

Non-Insane automatism:

Answer 17

Essentially when D did not have control of their body due to an external cause (not self inducded)
-> A.G Reference (No. 2 of 1992) “total destruction of voluntary control”

Question 18

Non-insane automatism case law:

Answer 18

R v Quick - hypoglycemic episode lead to an attack and was granted defence of automatism
R v Hennessy - diabetic hadn’t taken insulin at all and had a hyperglycemic episode and stole a car -> proper defence here was insanity as it was an internal factor

Question 19

R v Clarke

Answer 19

Defect of reason requires an inability to exercise reason

Question 20

R v Windle

Answer 20

Upon murdering his wife and being arrested -> said “I’ll likely hang for this”

-> D’s comment showed he knew it was wrong

Question 21

Broome v Perkins

Answer 21

Automatism requires a complete loss of control

Question 22

R v Hardie

Answer 22

Non-dangerous drugs having unknown is involuntary intoxication

Question 23

R v Willer

Answer 23

Facts: Escaping youths in a car by driving through a pedestrian precinct

Held: “wholly driven by force of circumstances”

Question 24

R v Fitzpatrick

Answer 24

Voluntarily exposes oneself to duress is no defence

Question 25

R v Cole

Answer 25

Threatened with violence it didn’t repay money so committed armed robberies to get money

Held not to be duress as decision to offend was free choice

Question 26

R v Hudson and Taylor

Answer 26

Threatened with violence not to give testimony in court

Not whether threats could be carried out immediately but whether the duress was actin on them at the time

Question 27

R v Graham

Answer 27

Test for duress:

1. ) D compelled to act because on the basis of the circumstances as he believed them to be, thought life was in immediate danger
2. ) Would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D’s characteristics have responded in the same way