Topic 9 - Defences Flashcards
What is the main issue when considering intoxication as a defense in criminal law?
Intoxication is never a defense on its own; it may only affect criminal liability if it causes the defendant to lack mens rea (intent or recklessness) for the crime.
How does intoxication affect liability for specific intent crimes?
If a defendant is intoxicated and this prevents them from forming the required mens rea (intention), they can argue intoxication as a defense to a specific intent crime (e.g., murder, Section 18 offenses).
How does intoxication affect liability for basic intent crimes?
For basic intent crimes, intoxication (especially voluntary intoxication) does not provide a defense because the defendant is deemed reckless for becoming intoxicated.
What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary intoxication in terms of criminal liability?
Voluntary intoxication does not excuse liability for basic intent crimes, while involuntary intoxication may be used to negate mens rea for both basic and specific intent crimes.
What is the Dutch Courage principle in relation to intoxication as a defense?
If a defendant deliberately consumes alcohol or drugs to gain confidence to commit a crime, they cannot rely on intoxication as a defense.
Can voluntary intoxication affect other defenses, like self-defense?
Yes, voluntary intoxication causing a mistaken belief about the need to use force will prevent a defendant from relying on the self-defense argument.
Can intoxication affect a defense for criminal damage?
Yes, under Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act, a mistaken belief about consent can be induced by voluntary intoxication and still support a lawful excuse defense (Jaggard and Dickinson case).
What type of defense is self-defense in criminal law?
Self-defense is a complete defense. If successfully raised, it leads to the defendant’s acquittal.
What is the evidential burden in self-defense cases?
The defendant must introduce some evidence of self-defense. Once done, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
How does a defendant’s belief about the necessity of force affect a self-defense claim?
The defendant’s belief that force was necessary is examined subjectively. Even if mistaken, the defendant can rely on self-defense unless the mistake is due to voluntary intoxication.
When will a mistaken belief about the need for force not be valid in self-defense?
A mistaken belief caused by voluntary intoxication will prevent the defendant from relying on self-defense.
How is the reasonableness of force in self-defense determined?
The reasonableness of force is judged objectively based on the circumstances as the defendant perceived them, taking into account the defendant’s physical characteristics.
What happens if the force used in self-defense is disproportionate?
If the force used is disproportionate, self-defense will fail, unless it is a householder case where force used in a dwelling is not grossly disproportionate.
Is there a duty to retreat when claiming self-defense?
No, there is no duty to retreat. However, a failure to retreat may be considered in assessing whether the force used was reasonable.
Can a defendant strike first and still claim self-defense?
Yes, a defendant can strike first, and it does not automatically negate the availability of self-defense.
