Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
Complete defence to crimes of both basic and specific
intent.
Only a defence where D does not have intent prior to the
intoxication.
RELATE TO Q.
Not a defence where D has the MR.
R v Kingston
RELATE TO Q.
Underestimating the amount or the strength of the alcohol/
drugs is not involuntary intoxication.
R v Allen
RELATE TO Q.
If D takes a non-dangerous drug in a non-reckless way, this
can be treated as involuntary.
R v Hardie
RELATE TO Q.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
Offers a complete or a partial defence depending on
whether the offence has a conviction that can be reduced
from specific intent to basic intent e.g. murder to
manslaughter.
Only a defence to specific intent crimes if the D is
incapable of forming the MR.
R v Lipman
RELATE TO Q.
Not a defence where D has basic intent.
DPP v Majewski
RELATE TO Q.
Not a defence to 'Dutch courage'.
AG for N.I v Gallagher
RELATE TO Q.…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

SELF-DEFENCE
Self-defence is found in the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008.
Prevention of crime is found in Section 3 of the
Criminal Law Act 1967.
A person can use lawful force so long as they genuinely
believe it is necessary.
R v Williams
RELATE TO Q.
The force must be reasonable, D should only do what they
honestly and instinctively think is necessary.
R v Martin
RELATE TO Q.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

AUTOMATISM
Defence when the act is committed 'if done by
the muscles without any control of the mind'.
AG for N.I v Bratty
RELATE TO Q.
D's act must be involuntary.
RELATE TO Q.
D must have a total loss of voluntary control (caused
by an external factor).
AG Ref No.2
RELATE TO Q.
Factor causing the loss of voluntary control must be
external.
Hill v Baxter
RELATE TO Q.
R v T
RELATE TO Q.
R v Quick
RELATE TO Q.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

CONSENT
Generally a defence to assault and battery as
we imply consent to the "physical contacts of
ordinary life". Defence to more serious injury if
an exception applies.
Defence can be used if the D honestly and
genuinely believed V consented, even if the
belief was mistaken.
R v Richardson + Irwin
RELATE TO Q.
Consent must be genuine.
R v Tobassum
RELATE TO Q.
Consent must be valid and V must understand the act
and know what they are consenting to.…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

INSANITY
The law on insanity uses the M'Naghten rules and
states that every man is presumed to be sane
unless the contrary can be proven
The D must prove that they were labouring under
a defect of reason, a disease of the mind, that made
them unaware of the nature of their act or that it was
illegal.
RELATE TO Q.
A defect of reason is where the D is incapable of
exercising powers of reason.
R v Clarke
RELATE TO Q.…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Here's a taster:

CASE LIST ­ DEFENCES
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
R v Kingston D was a known paedophile with homosexual tendencies, he had a drink spiked and was taken
to a room where he abused a sleeping 15 year-old boy.
R v Allen D drank home-made wine unaware of how strong it was and committed sexual offences.
R v Hardie D took a sedative but the usual effects did not occur and D set fire to the house.…read more

Page 9

Preview of page 9

Here's a taster:

Hill v Baxter D was driving and had a collision with another car. He claimed he had been overcome by an
unknown illness and had been unconscious at the time.
R v T D had been raped and was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when she committed a
robbery and ABH.
R v Quick The D, a diabetic, was in a state of hypoglycaemia and during a blackout he injured a patient.…read more

Comments

zain

Ace work helped me a lot


Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »