D may be able to rely on the defence of self-defence.
This is where the force is justified to private defence (Palmer), private defence and defence of property.
Firstly, the force must be NECCESSARY.
In this case, D may have honestly believe that force was necessary because... (Williams (Gladstone)) Pre-emptive attack? (Beckford) Preparing for an attack? (AG Ref. (No.2) (1983)) Duty to retreat? (Bird)
Secondly, the force must be REASONABLE.
In this case: Threat of harm? Ugency of situation? Other options?
However, this is for the jury to decide
D may be able to rely on the defence of intoxication
This is where D is intoxicated by drugs or alcohol, providing evidence that he is unble to form the necessary mens rea.
Voluntary intoxication will only provide a partial defence to offences of a specific intent, and D will be convicted of the corresponding basic intent offence, where the mens rea of the offence is satisfied by D's recklessness in becoming intoxicated (Beard)
D will have no defence to a basic intent offence (Majewski)
Involuntary intoxication (Hardie) where the mens rea has not been formed (Kingston), will provide a defence to both crimes of specific and basic intent
In this case... Involuntary or voluntary?
What offence has been committed?
This is where the actus reus element of of unlawfulness will be negated by V's consent and this consent must be informed (Dica)
Generally, consent may only be pleased to crimes of assault of battery (Slingsby) unless it falls under 1 of the exceptions; properly conducted sport, tattooing/branding (Wilson) piercing, surgery, rough horseplay (Jones & Others)
Vaild consent cannot be given to actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm (Brown & Others)
This is where an act is done by the muscles without any control of the mind (Bratty)
Firstly, there must be a complete loss of voluntary control (Broome v Perkins)
In this case...
Secondly, this loss of control must be caused by an external factor (Quick)
In this case...
This is where it must be proved that at the time of committing the act D was labourting under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, so as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or if he did, he did not know it was legally wrong
Firstly, there must be a defect of reason (Clarke)
In this case... [ defective powers of reasoning ]
This must be from a disease of the mind (Hennessey)
In this case... [ condition ]
D must not know the nature and quality of the act, or if he does, he must not know it is legally wrong (Windle)
In this case... due to D's [condition] he MAY...