Important cases : Defences Flashcards
Self Defence : R V Palmer
Gives the self defence structure
Self Defence : R v Williams (Gladstone)
Defendant is judged against facts as he believed them at the time
Self Defence : R v O’Grady
If self defence prompted by drunken mistake, it can’t be relied upon
Self Defence : R v McGrath
Intoxication does not automatically mean self defence is caused by drunken mistake
Self Defence : R v Keane
D is allowed self-defence even when D started fight if V’s response is disproportionate
Self Defence :Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 1983)
Can’t prepare self defence but self defence not limited to spontaneous acts of D
Self Defence : R v Owino
Test for excessive force is objective
Self Defence : R v Clegg
If threat passed, self defence not permitted
Self Defence : R v Martin
Self defence not permitted if V is retreating
Duress: R v Graham
- Test for duress
- If D is drunk, this will not be taken into account
- Was the defendant compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury?
- Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics as the defendant, have acted in the same way?
Duress: R v Quayle
Duress if D in imminent danger of death or serious injury
Duress: R v Valderrama-Vega
Need a threat of death or serious injury. Other threats are taken
into account alongside those.
Duress: R v Cole
Duress only applies if the D committed a crime as the result of
duress
Duress: R v Bowen
Take into account sex, age, pregnancy, physical health and
disability, mental health concerns and psychiatric issues
Duress: R v Hasan (2005) / R v Batchelor (2013)
If you have time to escape, you can’t claim duress.
Duress: R v Hasan
If you associate with criminals who are likely to use violence,
can’t claim duress. Threat to anyone sufficiently close to use is
duress.
Duress: R v Shayler
Can use duress if you can identify victims and those victims are
sufficiently close to you
Duress: R v Howe
Threat must be convincing
Duress : R v Baker
psychological injury doesn’t count
Insanity :R v Quick
If diabetic outcome due to mis prescribed insulin, not insanity as is outside cause
Insanity : M’Naghten (1843)
that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and … that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong
Insanity :R v Clarke
Absent-mindedness or confusion not insanity
Insanity : R v Hennessey
Diabetes can be insanity
Insanity :Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland
Insanity has to come from disease of mind
Insanity : R v Kemp
Physical conditions that impair condition of mind are insanity
Insanity : AG for NI v Gallagher
Self induced intoxication does not become insanity
Insanity : R v Johnson
Not insanity if person is aware act is illegal
Intoxication: R v Sheehan and Moore
If intoxicated, the defendant may lack the required mens rea
Intoxication: R v Lipman
Fallback Offences : If a specific intent crime fails, D can fall back on a basic intent crime e.g. manslaughter
Intoxication: Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
A defendant who forms intent before becoming intoxicated can still be guilty. Intoxication doesn’t negate mens rea
Intoxication: DPP v Majewski
Voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence for basic intent crimes (e.g., assault), as intoxication is considered reckless.
Intoxication: R v Allen
If unaware of the strength of the intoxicant, D could use this as a defence.
Intoxication: R v Kingston
If the prosecution can prove that he or she did form the men’s rea, he or she will be guilty of the offence whether specific of basic intent even if they would not have committed it has she or he been involuntarily intoxicated
Intoxication: Hardie
If the defendant did not have necessary intent or had been reckless in getting intoxicated he will not be
Intoxication: R v O’Grady
If intoxicated mistake is about another aspect e.g. amount of force needed in self-defence, then D has NO defence
Intoxication: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
a mistaken belief through D’s voluntary intoxication cannot give a defence of self-defence
Automatism: Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland
Definition: Acts carried out while a person lacks the capacity to make independent rational decisions or lacks the animus to prevent themselves from carrying out the act
Automatism (insanity): M’Naghten Rules
Insane automatism: When involuntary actions result from an internal cause classified as a “disease of the mind”
Automatism: Hill v Baxter
automatism could be a defence if caused by an external factor.
Automatism: Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992)
partial loss of control does not amount to automatism. A total loss of voluntary control is required.
Automatism: R v T
While stress and trauma can be external factors, the court rejected automatism as there was insufficient evidence of total loss of control.
Automatism: R v Bailey
The defence of automatism may be available for specific intent offences unless the defendant was reckless in inducing the state.
Automatism: R v Hardie
Automatism was allowed as a defence because Valium’s normal effect is too calm, and the defendant could not foresee the unusual reaction.
