General Defences

HideShow resource information
  • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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,
      • 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

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal law resources »