Unit 2 - Defences

Question 1

What are the two categories of defence, and what defences fall under each category?

Answer 1

Capacity and necessity
Capacity - insanity, automatism and intoxication
Necessity - Self-defence, duress by threats and duress of circumstances

Question 2

What are the four requirements for an insanity defence, and what is the name of the case which decided this?

Answer 2

1. Defendant must be labouring under a defect of reason
2. Arising from a disease of the mind
3. So they did not know the nature and quality of the act
4. Or if they did they didn’t know it was wrong

R v M’Naghten (1843)

Question 3

Case - showing that insanity must arise from an “internal factor”

Answer 3

R v Kemp (1957) - hardening of the arteries

Question 4

Cases - the two “diabetes” cases and distinguish between them

Answer 4

R v Quick (1973) and R v Hennessy (1989). Quick - external factor from having taken insulin. Hennessy - internal factor from lack of insulin.

Question 5

What is the result of a successful insanity defence?

Answer 5

Acquittal

Question 6

What is the definition of automatism and which case defined this?

Answer 6

“an act done by the muscles without control by the mind, or an act done by someone unconscious of what he is doing”

Batty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) - blackout strangulation

Question 7

What is the result of a successful automatism defence and why?

Answer 7

Full acquittal - no mens rea is present

Question 8

Case - showing that loss of control must be total for automatism

Answer 8

Attorney-General Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993) - highway hypnosis

Question 9

Case - showing that automatism must be due to an external factor

Answer 9

Hill v Baxter (1963) - bees

Question 10

Why is intoxication a defence?

Answer 10

Intoxication can throw doubt on the defendant’s ability to form mens rea for specific intent crimes.

Question 11

Define voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and describe the effects these have as a defence.

Answer 11

Voluntary intoxication is where a substance is willingly taken by the defendant. This acts as a complete defence to specific intent crimes bu not to basic intent crimes.

Involuntary intoxication is where the defendant did not know he was taking intoxicating substances. This will fully defend if he did not form the mens rea but will not defend if he did.

Question 12

Case - showing that the defendant must be completely incapable of forming mens rea for intoxication to apply as a defence

Answer 12

DPP v Beard (1920) - suffocation

Question 13

Case - showing that recklessness in getting intoxicated can apply for ABH

Answer 13

DPP v Majeswski (1977) - get paralytic and fight

Question 14

What Act and section clarify and define self-defence?

Answer 14

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Question 15

Which three scenarios will allow the defence to succeed i/r/t self-defence?

Answer 15

1. Actions needed to defend oneself from attack
2. Actions taken to defend another person
3. Actions taken to prevent a crime or arrest an offender/suspected offender

Question 16

Case - showing that honest but mistaken belief will allow defence to function i/r/t self-defence

Answer 16

R v Williams (1987) - stop the cop

Question 17

Case - showing that amount of force used in self-defence must be reasonable

Answer 17

R v Martin (2002) - shotgun burglar

Question 18

What test is used by the courts i/r/t duress by threats, and what case is this named for?

Answer 18

1. Was defendant compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury?
2. Would sober person of reasonable firmness and similar characteristics have acted the same way?

R v Graham (1982) - gay lover kills wife

Question 19

Who can a threat be made against for the duress by threats defence to succeed?

Answer 19

The defendant, a close family member or a person for whom the defendant is responsible.

Question 20

Case - showing that in duress by threats, threats must be immediate or almost immediate

Answer 20

R v Hasan (1995) - burglary threat

Question 21

What test is used by the courts i/r/t duress of circumstances, and what case is this named for?

Answer 21

1. Did the Defendant objectively act reasonably and proportionately to avoid death or serious harm?
2. Was the Defendant compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury?
3. Would a sober person of reasonable firmness and similar characteristics have acted the same way?

R v Martin (1989) - driving son suicide

Question 22

Case - showing that whether duress of circumstances applies is a matter for the jury

Answer 22

R v Pommell (1995) - gun sleep

Question 23

Case - showing that the threat in duress by threats must be death or serious harm

Answer 23

R v Valderrama-Vega (1985) - homsexuality cocaine

Question 24

Case - showing the “eggshell skull rule” in regards to breaking the chain of causation

Answer 24

R v Blaue (1975) - Jehovah’s Witness

Question 25

Case - showing “transferred malice” of an actus reus

Answer 25

R v Latimer (1886) - belt hit