Unit 2 - Defences Flashcards
What are the two categories of defence, and what defences fall under each category?
Capacity and necessity
Capacity - insanity, automatism and intoxication
Necessity - Self-defence, duress by threats and duress of circumstances
What are the four requirements for an insanity defence, and what is the name of the case which decided this?
- Defendant must be labouring under a defect of reason
- Arising from a disease of the mind
- So they did not know the nature and quality of the act
- Or if they did they didn’t know it was wrong
R v M’Naghten (1843)
Case - showing that insanity must arise from an “internal factor”
R v Kemp (1957) - hardening of the arteries
Cases - the two “diabetes” cases and distinguish between them
R v Quick (1973) and R v Hennessy (1989). Quick - external factor from having taken insulin. Hennessy - internal factor from lack of insulin.
What is the result of a successful insanity defence?
Acquittal
What is the definition of automatism and which case defined this?
“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
What is the result of a successful automatism defence and why?
Full acquittal - no mens rea is present
Case - showing that loss of control must be total for automatism
Attorney-General Reference No 2 of 1992 (1993) - highway hypnosis
Case - showing that automatism must be due to an external factor
Hill v Baxter (1963) - bees
Why is intoxication a defence?
Intoxication can throw doubt on the defendant’s ability to form mens rea for specific intent crimes.
Define voluntary and involuntary intoxication, and describe the effects these have as a defence.
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.
Case - showing that the defendant must be completely incapable of forming mens rea for intoxication to apply as a defence
DPP v Beard (1920) - suffocation
Case - showing that recklessness in getting intoxicated can apply for ABH
DPP v Majeswski (1977) - get paralytic and fight
What Act and section clarify and define self-defence?
Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Which three scenarios will allow the defence to succeed i/r/t self-defence?
- Actions needed to defend oneself from attack
- Actions taken to defend another person
- Actions taken to prevent a crime or arrest an offender/suspected offender
Case - showing that honest but mistaken belief will allow defence to function i/r/t self-defence
R v Williams (1987) - stop the cop
Case - showing that amount of force used in self-defence must be reasonable
R v Martin (2002) - shotgun burglar
What test is used by the courts i/r/t duress by threats, and what case is this named for?
- Was defendant compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury?
- Would sober person of reasonable firmness and similar characteristics have acted the same way?
R v Graham (1982) - gay lover kills wife
Who can a threat be made against for the duress by threats defence to succeed?
The defendant, a close family member or a person for whom the defendant is responsible.
Case - showing that in duress by threats, threats must be immediate or almost immediate
R v Hasan (1995) - burglary threat
What test is used by the courts i/r/t duress of circumstances, and what case is this named for?
- Did the Defendant objectively act reasonably and proportionately to avoid death or serious harm?
- 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 and similar characteristics have acted the same way?
R v Martin (1989) - driving son suicide
Case - showing that whether duress of circumstances applies is a matter for the jury
R v Pommell (1995) - gun sleep
Case - showing that the threat in duress by threats must be death or serious harm
R v Valderrama-Vega (1985) - homsexuality cocaine
Case - showing the “eggshell skull rule” in regards to breaking the chain of causation
R v Blaue (1975) - Jehovah’s Witness
Case - showing “transferred malice” of an actus reus
R v Latimer (1886) - belt hit
