Pages in this set

Page 1

Preview of page 1
Defences
When a defendant is charged with an offence, there are various defences which may be
available to them
If a defence is used and it is successful then the defendant is acquitted of the crime
The only exception to this is the defence of insanity because a special verdict…

Page 2

Preview of page 2
McNaughten Rules

Main rule = "in all cases every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree
of reason to be responsible for his crimes".
For the defence of insanity, it has to be proven that at the time of the act, the D was
suffering…

Page 3

Preview of page 3
Can be organic = disease of the organs of the body like epilepsy, diabetes, tumours or
artersclerosis

Case Facts Principle
Hennessy Diabetic who had not taken insulin for Disease of diabetes was affecting his mind and
(1989) three days. He got into a car that had been so comes within…

Page 4

Preview of page 4
Automatism
The defendant must show his act was:

Involuntary ­ Lord Dening quote see Bratty
Due to an external factor ­ has to be caused by an external cause (blow to head, sneezing,
hypnotism) and not by an internal cause (disease of mind) or self-induced (drugs or alcohol)

Types of…

Page 5

Preview of page 5
For basic intent offences there are three
conditions.
Hardie (1984) D was depressed because he girlfriend split Where the D does not know his actions are
up with him. He took valium tablets to calm likely to lead to a self-induced automatic
himself but these made him set fire to…

Page 6

Preview of page 6
The fact that the Victim appears to consent doesn't make the consent genuine.
If the victim is mentally retarded, then the consent may not be valid.
It is whether the victim has sufficient understanding and intelligence to give consent.



3. Sexual consent and the transmission of disease is consent if…

Page 7

Preview of page 7
Case Facts Principle
R v Billinghurst (1978) During a rugby match, the D punched D was charged with s.20 GBH. Although the victim
another player fracturing his jaw. consented to the risks in rugby, he didn't consent to
off the ball physical contact so the D was charged.
Moore (1898)…

Page 8

Preview of page 8
Wilson (1997) Couple wanted to brand initials on each Court of Appeal quashed the conviction ­ branding
other's buttocks. The branding went septic on was deemed to be same as tattooing and his wife
his wife and Mr Wilson was convicted of ABH. was a willing participant and within the…

Page 9

Preview of page 9
Intoxication cannot be relied upon if the defendant has voluntary put themselves in a state of
intoxication and then committed a crime. (Reckless conduct if you drink voluntarily ­
Majewski)
Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to specific intent crimes (Lipman)

Specific intent crimes

No recklessness, has to be intention…

Page 10

Preview of page 10
O'Grady (1987) D was drinking with his friend and woke up If the drunken mistake is about the amount of
to find his friend attacking him so he force needed in self-defence, the D will not
retaliated. The victim died of the injuries have a defence. D was convicted of…

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »