General Defences Flashcards
Specific defences v general defences
Specific: Only for a particular crime
General: used for any crime, including murder - general defences result in acquittal
Infancy:
The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s50
- conclusively presumed no child under 10 can be guilty of an offence (cannot be rebutted)
Walters v Lunt
An adult instigating a child under 10 to commit such an act is a principal not a secondary party
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
s34:
- abolished 10-14 rule of not being able to commit an offence
Mistake:
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
R v Scarlett
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
Consent:
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
Intoxicated:
Not strictly a defence but impacts on presence or absence of mens rea
-Split into voluntary and involuntary intoxication
Involuntary Intoxication:
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
R v Kingston
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
Voluntary Intoxication:
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
A-G for NI v Gallagher
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
Insanity:
- ) Can be used as a denial of mens rea
2. ) Used when MR and AR have been established
M’Naughten
Everyone is pressumed sane unless at time of commititing offence:
- ) Suffering from a disease of the mind
- ) From which he was labouring under a defect of reason
- ) So as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
- ) OR if he did know it, he did not know what he was doing was wrong
Bratty:
“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
Successful plea on insanity:
Not guilty but insane -> fixed hospital order
Non-Insane automatism:
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”
Non-insane automatism case law:
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
R v Clarke
Defect of reason requires an inability to exercise reason
R v Windle
Upon murdering his wife and being arrested -> said “I’ll likely hang for this”
-> D’s comment showed he knew it was wrong
Broome v Perkins
Automatism requires a complete loss of control
R v Hardie
Non-dangerous drugs having unknown is involuntary intoxication
R v Willer
Facts: Escaping youths in a car by driving through a pedestrian precinct
Held: “wholly driven by force of circumstances”
R v Fitzpatrick
Voluntarily exposes oneself to duress is no defence
