GENERAL DEFENCES
- Created by: Jack Cohen
- Created on: 10-04-14 21:45
View mindmap
- GENERAL DEFENCES
- 1) CONSENT
- Availability - Assaults with minor injury
- NEVER available for - Murder or S18 OAPA. Not usually avalaible - S20 and sometimes S47 OAPA
- Prevents act from being unlawful
- Slingsby 1995
- "Vigorous sexual activity" - D's signet ring caused small cuts + she developed blood poisoning + died. NO conviction UAMS as not unlawful act. V's consent meant NO Battery.
- Slingsby 1995
- Offences NOT subject to consent
- A) Person cannot consent to being killed
- Airedale NHS Trust V Bland
- Euthanasia - Bland = Persistent vegetative state 4 years. HOL HELD: lawful for hospital to withdraw his feeding tube as it was form medical treatment which could be stopped if it wasn't helping patient
- Pretty 2002
- HOL - Didn't find article 2 (right to life) created right to die + need protect vulnerable justified the prohibition on assisted suicide
- Airedale NHS Trust V Bland
- B) With regard to S47, S20 and S18 OAPA
- Person cannot generally consent to activity which intended/ likely lead to one of these offences
- R v Brown
- Infliction bodily harm without good reason is unlawful + Consent of V = irrelevant
- R v Brown
- Person cannot generally consent to activity which intended/ likely lead to one of these offences
- A) Person cannot consent to being killed
- EXCEPTIONS because of public policy
- 1) Properly conducted games/sport
- Even though players consent to contact within rules of game - can still be CRIMINAL
- Barnes 2004 (list of factors with make sport more criminal)
- Intentional infliction of injury always criminal
- "OFF THE BALL" injuries = criminal
- Reckless infliction of injury - did injury occur in actual play OR in moment of temper.
- 2) Body adornment
- Wilson 1996
- Branding - like having tattoo because it was personal adornment as consent given
- Person can lawfully consent having tattoo
- Wilson 1996
- 3) Horseplay + Sexual activity
- 1) Properly conducted games/sport
- 2) INSANITY OR INSANE AUTOMATISM
- Special Verdict
- Not guilty by reason of insanity
- M'Naghten Rules (ALL 3 REQUIRED)
- AS NOT TO KNOW THE NATURE + QUALITY OF THE ACT HE WAS DOING
- D cuts womens throat thinking he is slicing a loaf.
- OR IF HE DID, HE DID NOT KNOW HIS ACT WAS WRONG
- EG: Because D suffering from delusions
- R v Johnson 2007
- CA dismissed appeal - Legal definition of insanity is still the M'Nagten test.
- D knew what he was doing - had not produced any evidence that he did not know his conduct was legally wrong.
- CAUSED BY DISEASE OF MIND
- Kemp
- GBH - NOT concerned with the brain but with the mind
- Quick
- External cause because was automatism + NOT insanity. (Non - Insane automatism)
- Sullivan
- D pleaded guilty ABH.Not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Hennessy
- Disease of diabetes was effecting his mind, therefore comes within definition of insanity.
- Kemp
- DEFECT OF REASON
- Clarke 1972
- COA - "Defect of Reason" applied only to 'Persons who by reason of a disease of mind are deprived of the power of reasoning'
- Clarke 1972
- AS NOT TO KNOW THE NATURE + QUALITY OF THE ACT HE WAS DOING
- Availability: All offences where MR is required
- Limitation: Not available for strict liability offences
- Insanity proved by D on the balance of probabilities
- Special Verdict
- 3) AUTOMATISM
- 1) Insane Automatism
- Where automatism is a disease of the mind
- 2) NON - Insane Automatism
- The crime was committed by an involuntary act caused by external factors.
- 3) Automatism arises where the accused's conduct is completely involuntary
- 4) Automatism is an involuntary movement of the body or limbs. (Hill v Baxter)
- 5) Automatism is a matter of law for the judge to decide
- 6) Normally there must be medical evidence in support
- CASES
- Bratty
- Quick
- R v T (1990)
- R v Hardie
- Where D does not know his actions are likely to lead to self-induced automatism - Defence available
- Limits for the defence (CASES)
- A-G's Ref (No. 2 of 1992)
- Must be "Total destruction of voluntary control" not just partial control
- Bailey
- If offence is one of specific intent, self-induced automatism can be defence because D lacks MR. Basic intent crimes, the prosecution must prove that D knew he was acting recklessly when he took the drug
- A-G's Ref (No. 2 of 1992)
- Availability: All Offences
- 1) Insane Automatism
- 4) INTOXICATION
- Covers intoxication by alcohol, drugs or other substances
- 1) Was intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
- 2) Is offence one of SPECIFIC OR BASIC Intent?
- Availability: Vol. Intox. - Specific intent offences - Murder + s18 OAPA
- Vol. Intox. not available basic intent offences - MS, s20, s47, Assault + Battery.
- VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
- D chosen take intoxicating substance/knows effect of prescribed drug.
- INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
- D didn't know he was taking intoxicating substance
- Kingston
- Invol.Tox. + basic intent crime. Court decided that he had formed the MR of the offence.
- Hardie
- Invol Tox + basic intent crime. D hadn't been reckless in taking drugs. Therefore Defence
- Kingston
- D didn't know he was taking intoxicating substance
- 4) SELF - DEFENCE
- Availability: All OAP Offences
- "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he genuinely believes them to be in the defence of himself or another"
- D Must Prove:
- 1) It was necessary to use force on the facts as D believed them to be.
- Belief doesn't need to be reasonable
- Williams
- If thought of genuine mistake the jury should judge D according to genine mistaken view of the facts, regardless of whether this mistake was reasonable or unreasonable
- Williams
- Not Necessary to away, but this will be good evidence that he was acting reasonably + in good faith.
- Bird
- If D proved to be retreating or calling off fight - Self defence available
- Bird
- Belief doesn't need to be reasonable
- 2) The amount of force used was reasonable in the circumstances
- Excessive force then NO defence
- Martin 2002
- Clegg
- Excessive force then NO defence
- 1) It was necessary to use force on the facts as D believed them to be.
- 1) CONSENT
- Invol. Tox. - NOT a defence
- Kingston
- Invol.Tox. + basic intent crime. Court decided that he had formed the MR of the offence.
- Kingston
Comments
No comments have yet been made