Murder defences

  • Created by: jesskeayy
  • Created on: 02-05-19 14:22
View mindmap
  • Defences to murder
    • Diminished Responsibility
      • Must prove suffering from an abnormality of mental functioning, arose from a medical condition that impaired the ability to recognise risk, rational judgement and exercise self control
        • Recognised conditions does not cover mercy killings or developmental immaturity
        • Condition must limit your ability to do things, i.e detect risk
        • Doesn't cover acute intoxication Dowd (2012)
        • Golds (2016) substantial impairment of abiltiy
        • Must impair one of: 1. understanding nature of conduct. 2.form rational judgement. 3. ability to exercise control.
        • Must be a casual link between D's behaviour and the abnormality to cause the death
          • Dietschmann (2003) only needs to be a signif contributing factor
        • Burden of probability is on D to prove DR. If so, murder charge will be withdrawn
      • Insanity
        • Le** preferred than DR, as it results in indefinite detention in a mental hospital
        • Difficult to satisfy
    • Lo** of self-control
      • ** 54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Reduces murder to MS.
        • Mustafa Gurpinar (2015) not nece**ary to be sudden
      • D's acts resulted from a lo** of self control, which had a qualifying trigger, a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of self restraint in the circumstance would have acted different
        • Qualifying trigger: must cause the LOSC and must cause D to fear serious violence from V
          • Must be something done/said which: constitutes circumstances of grave character
            • Must cause D to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
        • FOSV: applies even where D is mistaken about the facts and a reasonable person would have made the same judgement
        • Sense of being wronged: must be on an objective basis
          • Clinton (2012) sexual infidelity specifically excluded
      • Jewell (2014) must be a lo** of self control
    • Age, automatism & insanity
      • Negate criminality where both AR and MR are satisfied.
        • Capacity & age: D is presumed rational and autonomous
          • Non-insane automatism: D's act not under control of his conscious mind
            • T (1990) di**ociate state
            • Hill v Baxter (1958) reflex actions
            • Bratty (1963) not satisfied by consumption of alcohol/drugs
        • Insanity: M'Naghten (1843) at the time of offending, D was labouring under a defect of reason or from a disease of the mind
          • 1. not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or 2. if he did know, he didn't know what he was doing
          • Disease of the mind: Sullivan(1983) any disease of the mind: whether organic, functional, permanent or intermittent
            • Burge** (1991) sleepwalking
              • Sullivan (1983) epilepsy
                • Quick (1973) diabetes: hyperglycaemia qualifies, hypoglycaemia doesn't
          • Consequences for capacity: must 1. not know nature/quality of the act. 2. not knowing act was wrong
    • Intoxication & dure**
      • Intoxication: relevant if D is intoxicated voluntarily Beard (1920)
      • Kingston (1995) distinguish lack of MR from reduced inhibition
        • Majewski(1977) drunk intent is still intent
      • Gallagher(1963) no defence where intention to commit was formed before intoxication
      • Involuntary intoxication: Kingston(1995) no defence where MR is still formed
        • Allen (1988) no defence where D mistook the strength of the intoxication
        • Hardie (1985) no defence where drug/drink known to be dangerous
      • Dure**:from threats to another, circumstances or nece**ity
        • Must be threat of death or serious injury
          • Lynch (1975)Property damage not sufficient
            • Vega (1985) injury to reputation insufficient
              • Hasan (2005) threat must cause D to commit the crime
                • Mullally (2012) offence committed must be that that D was told to commit
                  • Gotts(2012) dure** not available for murder
      • Dure** of circumstances: did the act to avoid risk of death or serious injury
        • Dudley v Stephens (1884)
      • Nece**ity: to avoid greater harm
        • Medical treatment: Re A (2000); Re F (1989)

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal Law resources »