General Defences
- Created by: Scragg
- Created on: 19-05-16 14:42
View mindmap
- General Defences
- Insanity M'Naughten
- Defect of Reason
- Clarke "the inability to use the powers of reason, rather than failing to use them"
- Disease of the Mind
- Can be temporary, as in Kemp
- Mental disorders, as in Bratty
- Epilepsy is sufficient, Sullivan
- Sleepwalking is sufficient, Burgess
- So D does not know the nature and quality of his act or what he was doing was wrong
- Did not know what he was doing
- he did not appreciate the consequence of his act
- He did not appreciate the circumstances in which he was acting
- Defect of Reason
- Automatism Bratty
- External Factor
- PTSD, R v T
- E.g, A Blow to a Head
- Must not be self induced as in Quick
- An Involuntary Act
- External Factor
- Intoxication
- Voluntary
- Becoming voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless act within itself, therefore D automatically has the mens rea for basic intent crimes, Dpp v Majewski
- Sheehan and Moore, intoxication is only a defence to specific intent offences
- Must be so drunk that D can't form the necessary mens rea, as in Lipman
- Dutch courage is not allowed, Gallagher
- Involuntary
- Drunken intent is still intent R v Kingston
- Non-illicit drugs taken in a non illicit way
- If you don't know the strength of your drink, it's voluntary intoxication. R v Allen
- Voluntary
- Self Defence
- Was the force necessary?
- If V is retreating it's unlikely that the force is necessary, Hussain
- Judged objectively, Gladstone v Williams
- Pre-emptive strikes are sufficient, Bird
- Was the force reasonable
- Common sense approach from R v Palmer
- Was the force necessary?
- Consent
- Sports
- If played within the rules and regs then there is consent, R v Bradshaw
- Only when it goes above these is there room for criminal liability, as in R v Barnes
- R v Bradshaw consider the; level of play, nature of the act, amount of force used, state of mind of D etc,
- If played within the rules and regs then there is consent, R v Bradshaw
- Body modification
- Regulated by the Tattooing of Minors act 1969
- Can happen at home, as in Wilson
- Horseplay
- The law doesn't concern itself with this providing it didn't go too far, Brown
- Sex
- Law intervenes in extreme sexual activities, Brown
- If the partner does not know D has HIV but D knows they are positive and chooses not to tell V, then they are guilty, Konzani
- Genuine?
- Problem relates to understanding rather than age, Burrell v Harmer
- Consent obtained by fraud is not valid, Tabassum
- Sports
- Insanity M'Naughten
Comments
No comments have yet been made