generel defences Flashcards

Question

What is automatism held in. Bratty v attorney general of Northern Ireland

Answer 1

An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion - or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he has done such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep walking

Answer 2

Insane automatism Non-insane automatism

Answer 3

Where the cause of automatism is a disease of mind under the M’Naughten This is normally a defence of insanity and a verdict of not guilty by insanity

Answer 4

The AR of the offence was not voluntary There was no MR due to automatism Hill v Baxter 1958 R v T 1990 Attorney- Generals Refs No2 of 1993

Answer 5

D charged with dangerous driving. Claimed to have no memory from an early point in his journey to immediately after the accident. He said he was overcome with a sudden illness therefore he was not liable under criminal law. First instance it was accepted that B was unconscious at the time of the accident.the charged 1st was dismissed. Prosecutor appealed and said D was fine driving at first prior to the incident it could also not be found that he was unconscious at the same time. Held - certain conditions could potentially serve a valid defence in future cases. established d is not guilty if they could prove they were completely unaware and unable to control their actions due to a uncontrollable external factor

Answer 6

d was raped. three days later she took place in a robberey and assualt. claimed at the time she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder which resulted from the rape.

Answer 7

D was a lorry driver who, after driving for several hours, drove along thhe hard shoulder forabout half a mile. he hit a stationary broken down car, kiling 2 eople/ he said he was suuffering from a condition - driving without awareness- which puts a diver in a trance like state. could be brought on by dirivng long distance. -held - driver still had enough awareness to drive a vehcichle - and this condition only causes partial losss of control does not amount to automatism.

Answer 8

- when the d knows that his or her conduct is likely to bring on a automatic state - this includes a diabetic, knowing the risls of failling to eat after taking insullin, or a person who drinks after taking medication - if the d knew the risls teh defence is only available for specific intent ctimes - if the response was unanticipated (e.g. side effects of a drug that were not expected) the defence can be used for specific and basic intent crimes.e R v Bailey R v hardie

Answer 9

D was a diatbetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insullin to ocntrol his diabetes. He became agressive and hit the v over the head with an iron bar, cHarged with a specific inten crime. held - d knew the risk that he might engage in dangerous or aggressive behaviour if he did not take his insullin therefore, he casnnot use the defence of automatism

Answer 10

D was depressed cos his gf told him to move out of their flat. he took some valium tablets which he had not been prescribed . gf encouraged him to take the tablets, syaing it would calmhimdown.he then set fire to a wardrobe in the flaw. he siad he did not know what he wasdoind due to the valium. - d took valium as he though it would calm himndowm - he had nop intention nor was he recklesstherefore he can use the defence of automatism

Answer 11

- specific intent - all ready got MR as was reckless to get in such a astate - this covers any drugs,alchool or any other substances e.g. - sniffing glue - d must be so intoxicated they are incapable odf peformingthe Mr of the offence the defence is mianly policy based -emaning the defence is there to protect the public from the many crimes thatare commited due to intoxication. 1. intoxication is a majo factor in the commissionof any crimes. over hald of violent crimes are commited by people who are intoxicated 2. there is a need to balance therights of the d and the v. if intoxication was always a defence the rights of the victim would not be protected

Answer 12

the d cannot rely on any mistake belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced whether the d is guilty or not depends on - whether the intoxication was volunatry or involuntary and whether the offence chraged is on of specific or basic intent Refers to the mental state of awareness a defendant must have when committing a crime .theese mental states play a key role in determining whether someone can be found guilty of a particular offence specific intent - refers to the mental state where the defendant has a particular purpose or goal in mine while committing the crime. The d acts with the intention of achieving a specific result and that result is an essential element of the crime. Example - a person has the specific intent to kill so,elem Often requires proof that the d ment to achieve a particular outcome. Theese crimes typically carry a more severe penalties because the defendant purpose is a key part of the offence basic intent - refers to the mental state where the defendant has the intention to commit the act,but without necessarily aiming for a specific result. The crime is committed without needing to prove that the defendant had a particular purpose or goal like causing serious injury (intent is more about the action itself) Reckless driving - d may not have intended to cause harm but their reckless driving led to an accident Basic intent crimes do not require proof of a specific goal or result, only the d intended to commit the prohibited act, even if they did not intend the exact outcome R V Sheehan and Moore R v Lipman 1970 AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher 1963 DPP V Majewski 1977 R v Allen 1988

Answer 13

D, in a drunken state. Pored petrol over a homeless man and set light to it, causing his death. It was decided that the relevant question was not whether the defendant was capable of forming the mens Rea, it was whether they had in fact formed the mens Rea- a drunken intent is still an intent. It is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant had the intention. In this case, they were unable to do so and the defendants were convinced of unlawful act manslaughter

Answer 14

D and his girlfriend took LSD d stuffed a sheet down her throat as he thought he was fighting a snake and going to the centre of the earth. Charged with his girlfriends murder Convicted of mad laughter acquitted murder as that basic intent offence to voluntary intoxication is no defence

Answer 15

D decided to kill his wife. He brought a knife to do the killing abd whilst wjich he drank to give him the courage before killing his wife. His conviction of murder was upheld as he formed the intent to kill her. Specific intent. - he made up his mind before, allegedly becoming sod rink that he killed her while having no mens Rea.

Answer 16

D consumed a large amount of alcohol and drugs he then attacked a alndlod. Landlord called police d attacked p9oce officer who tried to arrest him. Also damaged pub and police officer. D claimed he had no memory of what he had done due to the drink and drugs he consumed. Held being intoxicated via drugs or drunk was reckless course of conduct, recklessness was enough to constitute the necessary mens Rea in the offence with which he was charged so he could no t use the defence intoxication Specific intent - as although he has no intention, recklessness was present when getting himself in that state

Answer 17

D drank some home made wine which was a much greater influence on him then expected Whilst under the influence of wine he committed sexual assault. He claimed he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing and he has not voluntarily put himself in that condition as the wine was much stronger than he realised Decided that his intoxication was still voluntary, even though he has not realised that the strength of it however sexual Stuart is a crime of basic intent and therefore D was unable to rely on his intoxicated stage to negate the mens Rea.

Answer 18

Covers situation which the D didn’t know they were taking an intoxicating substance. Intoxicated through no fault of their own Eg spiking, laced drinks E.g prescription drugs that have a unexpected effect on D can argue

Answer 19

R v Kingston 1994 - D was invited to a house where his drink was drugged by a man who wanted to blackmail him. He was then shown a 15-year-old boy who was drugged and asleep in the room and D was invited to abuse him. D, who had paedophilic tendencies did so an was photographed by the blackmail The house of lords upheld his conviction for the indecent assault. they decided if a D had formed the mens rea for an offence before becoming intoxicated then involuntary intoxication could not be a defence

Answer 20

- if they can use the defence depends on what the mistake was about - specific imntent - the istake means they do not form the MR = defence Basic intent = no defence - if the mistake, is about something else, egthe amount of force needed in self defence, teh d does not have a defence.= R v O'Grady and Rv Hatton

Answer 21

R v O'Grady R v Hatton

Answer 22

after D and V, who were friends, had been drinking heavily, they fell asleep in Ds flat. D claimed that he awake to fit V hitting him. D picked up a glass ashtray and hit V with it and then went back to sleep. when he workup the next morning he found that D was dead. Was charged with manslaughter after mistakenly using excessive force against his friend. the mistaken belief was not allowed to be used for self defence as he was convicted of manslaughter. the court of appeal upheld this conviction saying that a defendant is not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned,upon a mistake offact which has bee induced by voluntary intoxication CHATGPT

Answer 23

statutory guidance that a mistaken belief caused through voluntary intoxication cannot be given a defence of self defence s76 states that reasonable force can be used for self- defence however s76(5) that this does not enable the defendant to rely on mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced exceptionm to this rule is for ciminaldammage applied in jaggardv dickinson 1980. s5 of the criminal damage atallowsan honest beelife thatthe person whom property belonged would have have consented to teh dammage or destruction.

Answer 24

D who was drunk,wentto whjat she though t was friends house, there was no one in so she broke a window to get in she believed accuratley her friend was consettio this. unfortunately in her drunken state she mistaken the hosue and had actually broken into the house of another person, she was charged with criminal damage divisionalcourt quahsed her conviction holding that she could rely on her intoxciated beelife as parliamnet had specifcially required the courtto consider tehd actual state of beleife,notthe sttae of beleif whcih oughttoe xisted.

Answer 25

Theese defences suggest that the AR committed by the defendant was not exactly a conscious free choice It suggests that their actions were necessary to avoid them being harmed, or to avoid something worse happening This therefire suggests that MR was not the same as if they were deliberately committing the AR There is 2 necessity defences -self defence - duress

Answer 26

Self defence is a complete defence and if successful rge d will be fount not guilty It covers defending yourself, defending others and defending property This is set out it common law and statute law - common law - amended in criminal justice and immigration act 2008 - statutory law - s3(1) of the criminal law act 1967 - self defence can be used in the prevention of a crime or in assisting in a lawful arrest - permits the use of such force is reasonable in the circumstances

Answer 27

Was it necessary to use any degree of force? If so, was the degree of force actually used proportionate or reasonable (to the harm threatened or the risk advertised) . If they genuinely believe there life to be in danger it can be self defence Extra info not element - if the degree of the force was unreasonable then there is no question of proportionality as the force cannot be reasonable If it was reasonable but not roortinate, then the force e was not reasonable in these circumstances

Answer 28

- was it necessary to use force . This will be judged according to the facts that the d beloved at the time - subjective . Thus can still be the case if the d is mistaken R v Gladstone Williams Beckford v the queen (1988)

Answer 29

D was on a bus when he saw what he thought was a man assaulting a youth, in fact the man was trying to arrest the youth for mugging an old lady. D asked officer to show his id which he could not. There was the. A struggle between the d and the officer. COA quashed his conviction as the jury should of been told the d only could use the defence id they thought the mistake was genuine they should of judged the d based on their genuine mistake lol - should judge v on genuine mistake

Answer 30

D was a police officer in Jamaica and was issued with a gun and ammunition and send with other officers to a house. According to the d a report was sent from a women about her brother terrorising her mum with a gun. When arriving at the house D state a man fired at them and he fired back killing him. However no gun was found. - a man who is attacked in circumstances where he reasonable believes his life to be in danger it that is in danger of serious bodily injury Mandy use such force as on reasonable gotunds he thinks necessary in order to resist the arrant and is usuing such force he kills his assailant he I not guilty of any crime even in the killing is intentional D was convicted of murder which carry’s the death penatkyy in Jamaica. He appealed, argued the judge was wrong his appeal was loung and it was established Legal principle - a person may use such force as is reaosmbake in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in tge d or himself or another

Answer 31

S76(5) makes it clear that the mistake was made because of voluntarily intoxication then they cannot rely on the defence of mistake e E.g. - voluntary intoxication leads to the beleif that you are being attacked and the defendant lashed out to defend them self but assaults a passerby in the process. The beleive may be genuine, but the mistake was caused by the voluntary intoxication R v Seun Oye 2013 R v Press and Thompson 2013

Answer 32

R v seun Oye 2013 R v Press and Thompson 2013

Answer 33

D who had no,previous convictions, spontaneously attacked police in the staff area of a coffeee shop later in the cells.as his defence he said he was being threatened and rushed by evil spirits and had to defend himself. Two paychiatric experts agreed that D was legally insane. Legal principle - can be a mental illness even if it is not continuous

Answer 34

R v bird 1986

Answer 35

D argument a ex girlfriend. She poured drink over him he slapped her CHAT GPT

Answer 36

S76(6a) makes it clear that a person is jog under and duty to retreat when acting. Retreat (go back) But the court might consider the possibility that they could have retreated but didn’t, as a relevant factor What if the d was the aggressor . Even if the d was the initial aggressor, they can use force is the v response was wholly disproportionate and was seriously threatening Providing this was not the d aim all along R v rash ford

Answer 37

D intended to attack v in revenge from an earlier dispouye but v and his friends responded out of proportion to Ds ggreaaion. T this point d had to switch from aggression to defence.coa held that a d will on,u lose the defence by being the aggressor through t the situation Held. - the d can use self defence if they feel their life is in danger and they no other means of escape.

Answer 38

D intended to attack v in revenge from an earlier dispouye but v and his friends responded out of proportion to Ds ggreaaion. T this point d had to switch from aggression to defence.coa held that a d will on,u lose the defence by being the aggressor through t the situation Held. - v is entitled to rely on self defence is rgeyvfeared that he or she was u. Immediate danger

Answer 39

Force which is disproportionate will not be reasonable Evidence to show they were only doing what was necessary is strong evidence that the action was reasonable ( s7 education) We must also consider There is no simple rockomijh of equality, in some cases using a weapon may be equal to someone else usuing their fist Initially proportionate, force may develop into disproportionate force Teh defence is lost when force is disproportionate Theese points can be seen in the case of R V Clegg

Answer 40

D was a solider in Northern Ireland his order has been to stop joyriders, a car came towards the checkpoint at speed and with its headlights dull on. On solider shouted to stop but it did not.. shot at the car and 1 shot whilst they where passing killing a girl im the car Held self defence cannot be used as as the shorts where fired whilst the car was going past therefor they where not a threat the danger had passed. Therefore solider was guilty Legal principle - proportionate force can change into distortions force Caused outcry’s as they where doing what they were ordered

Answer 41

D and his former epartmee wede I. A relationship and spending time in the former shared Hines v arrived at the house in a angry mid, in the course of a fight, fearing that V would use a ‘ofebsgainst him, d fatally stabb,ed v

Answer 42

1. Was the degree of force the d used grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be is the answer is yes then they cannot use the defence of self defence 2 was the degree of force the d used nevertheless reasonable in the circumstances he or she believed them to be? If it was reaosmbale, he or she has a defence R v Ray 2017

Answer 43

D and his former epartmee wede I. A relationship and spending time in the former shared Hines v arrived at the house in a angry mid, in the course of a fight, fearing that V would use a ‘ofebsgainst him, d fatally stabb,ed v

Answer 44

1. Whether the degree of force used in any case is reasonable to be considered by reference to the circumstances as the d believed them to be (this is contained in common law and s 76(3) 2. A householder is not regarded as having acting reasonably in the circumstances if the degree of force that went completely over the top would, on the fact of it, be grossly disproportionate 3. A degree of force that went completely over the top, would, on the fact of it, be grossly disproportionate 4. However, a householder may or may nit be regarded as having acted reasonably in the circumstances if the degree of force was used disproportionate. This willl be a mater of the jury to decide .

Answer 45

The shock of coming across an intruder in the house Rge time of the day The presence and vulunlerabilty of others in the house, especially children If any weapon or object was being used or picked up The conduct (or previous conduct) of the intruder

Answer 46

“A person may use force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of. Dine, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders if of person unlawfully at large” So reasonable force can be used in prevention of a crime or in making an arrest to: - allow a person to defend him - or herself from any form attack, so long as tge attack is criminal - prevent an attack or - defend his or her property, where there might be physical danger to the owner

Answer 47

Common law states that ab adult that is of sound mind is responsible for their own behaviour . Unless the d if forced to do something against there will they may be due to threats made against them . It is for the prosecution to prove that the d was not acting under duress . This is a common law defence and will result in a not guilty verdict. It is not available for the following offence . Murder .attempted murder .treason

Answer 48

Legal principle - duress is not a defence for murder as no threat can be serious enough to take someone else’s life later confirmed in R V Wilson

Answer 49

Applent worked for a women. Who ran an escort agency involving prostitution. He would drive women to clients and act as a minder. Teagen then became involved with another man. Frank Sullivan who was a drug dealer. Survillian took over much of the appellants work and friction developed between the two. Appalwnt was aware Sullivan was a dangerous man and Sullivan boasted about 3 murders he had committed recently. Sullivan and another man ambushed the appalehts house Sullivan threatened him the other person with him that If he did not a,bush the house then his family would be harmed. Appalent complied abd was convicted of aggravated burglerey. His defence of duress was rejected by the jury. 1. Trial judge had stated that the jury should find him guilty and reject the defence of duress if they were sure that he could have avoided acting as he did without harm coming to his family 2. The trial judge had not directed the jury in line with R v Baker and Ward as to whether the defendant had foreseen that he was likely to be subjected to threats to commit crime of the type for which he was charged. The court of appeal allowed the appeal and quashed his convicted the facts did not suggest that the defendant could have taken evasive action and therefore there was no need to direct the jury on thus point, the failure to direct in relation to foresight of the type of crime also amounted to a mis-direction. The crown appealed to lords.

Answer 50

1. There must be a threat to cause death or serious injury 2. The threat must be directed against the defendant or his or her immediate family or someone close to him or her 3. Whether the d reasonably in the light of the threats will be judged objectively 4. The threats relate directly to the crime committed by the d 5. There was no evasive action the d. Old have taken, 6. The d cannot use the defence if he or she has voluntarily laid him - or herself open to the threats

Answer 51

R v Valderrama-vega (1985)

Answer 52

D illegally imported cocaine. He claimed he had done this because of death threats made by a mafia type organisation involved in drug smuggling and also because of the threats to disclose his homosexuality and because of financial pressures. The trial judge said that the defence was only available ri him if the death threats were the sole reason of his offence. COA quashed his conviction as the jury was entitled to look at the cumulative effected if all threats made against him. There has not been a threat of death, the jury was entitled to consider all the threats

Answer 53

R v Hudson and Taylor 1971

Answer 54

The defence was not available during a perjury trial as the threat was not able to be put into effect while the girls were given evidence The COA stated that the threat had been present and the defence is available if the threat is hanging over the d

Answer 55

. the d . his or her immdiate family . someone close to him or her . a person for whose safety the d would reasonably regard him or her responsible

Answer 56

did the d act reasonably 1. was the d compelled to act as he or she did because he or she reasonably believed he or she had good cause to fear immediate serious injury or death? the defendnat must genuienly believe in the effectivness of the threat 2. would a sober personof reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of te accused, have responded in the same way the jury can take into consideration certain charcateistics decided in r v bowen

Answer 57

- the d had an iq of 68 and obtained goods by description to make petrol bombs when his family was threatened by 2 men. the characteristics onsidered must go to the ability to resist threats. this was layed nout in r v grham approved in Howe and again in Hasan charcteristics set out in bowen . age .pregnancy . serious physical disability . recognised mental illness or psychiatric disorder . gende (although the coa thought that many women might have as much moral courage asmen)

Answer 58

R v Graham 1982

Answer 59

d was homosexual who lived with his wife and another homosxual man. K.K qas violent and bullied D and his iwfe. D was taking drugs for anxiety, which made him more suspectiable to bullying, after both D and K had been drinking heavily, K but a flex around the wifes neck and told d to pull the other end of the flex killing his iwfe. D cleaimed his fear of k caused him to act as he did and maouted to duress. he was convicted and appealed on the grouds that the judge should have allowed the jury to take into account his particulae charcteristics - however his coviction was upheld and the fact that a d will to to resist a threat has been endoreded by the voluntary consumption if drinks or drugs, or both is taken into account

Answer 60

do the threats relate to teh crime

Answer 61

do the threats relate to the crime r v cole 1994

Answer 62

d caimed him and his girlfriend and child had been threatened (and he had actually been hit with a baseball bat) in order to maake him repay money he owed. As he did not haave the money, D carried out 2 robberies at bulding socities to get sufficient money to repay the debt. D said he only did this because of the threats of violence to him and his family. hhis conviction was upheld because he had not been told to commit the robbereis. Thw threats to him were directed at getting repayment ad not directed at making him commit a robbery. - meant there was no sufficient connection between the threats and teh crimes he commited, so te dfence of duress was not availabe.

Answer 63

5. was there any evasie action that could have een taken key case r v gill 1963

Answer 64

did the d lay himself open to threats r v sharp r v ali 2008

Answer 65

the d claimed that hee and his iwfe were threatened unless he stole a lorry. however there wasn a period of time duirng which he was left alone and so could have raised the alarm. As he had the possibility of a safe avenur of escape, he could not rely on a defence of duress r v hudson and taylor 1971 if teh threat is not immediatly carred out, there is room for evasive action and in case poice protction

Answer 66

coa qhere a perosn has voluntarily, and with knoldege of its nature, joined a ciminal organsiation or gang which he kniew might bring preassure n him to commit an offence and was a ctive memeber when he was put under preassure, he cannot vailmhimseof nof the defence of duress

Answer 67

in this defence it is the circumstace that dictates the crimnal behaviou rather than a persom there are severel cases that highlight the circustances this canbe used in r v martin 1986

Answer 68

ds wife became hystericla and threatened suicde unless d drive her son( whi was late and at risk or loosing his jon) to wokr. D had been disqualified fro driving but he eventually agreed to drive the boyn ot wotk. he was convicted of driving whilst disquaified on appeal it was ruled taht duress or circumstances could be available the same tets used in r v grham was applied so the tests were 1. Was the d compelled to act as he did because he reaosnably beleived he had good cause to nfear seirous injury or death 2. if so, would a sober perosn of reaonable nfirmens sharing the chaacteristic nof thebcaused acted the same way

Answer 69

the d, who were shi'ite muslimes had fled sudan from iraq becuase of their religion and the risk of punsimant and execution. they feared that, when they landed they would be sent back to iraw they hijacked the plane which eventually landed in tje ul. teh d were charged with hijacking and pleaded under duress. triljudge decided that the dnager they were in was not suffiecntly close and imediate as to give a spontaneous reactin. he ruled that the defence could not be conidered by the jury the ds were concited and appealed. COA quashed theirconvictions holidng that the threat need not to be immediate, but it had to be imineent in teh sese that it was hanging over them coa rulling in r v abdula hassian KEY ELEEMENTS OF DURESS - there must be immediate peril of death or serious injurt to the d, or to those for whom he or she has responability - the perill must operate on the d mind at the time of committing the otherwise crminla ct, so as nto obverbear his or jer will. this is katter of the jurt - wxecution of threat need not be immediatly prosect - there is no avenue of escape

Answer 70

- there must be immediate peril of death or serious injurt to the d, or to those for whom he or she has responability - the perill must operate on the d mind at the time of committing the otherwise crminla ct, so as nto obverbear his or jer will. this is katter of the jurt - wxecution of threat need not be immediatly prosect - there is no avenue of escape