The Defences

1. Insanity

2. Automatism

3. Intoxication

4. Consent

5. Self-defence

THE M'NAGHTEN RULES

1. A defect of reason

2. Caused by a disease of the mind

3. Resulting in the defendant not knowing the quality and nature of his act or not knowing his act is wrong

CLARKE

• D stole from a shop, but said he could not remember doing so
• was held that moments of absent-mindedness did not constitue a defect of reason

DEFECTS OF REASON MUST BE CAUSED BY A DISEASE OF THE MIND!

SULLIVAN

• epilepsy classed as a disease of the mind as it affected the mind

HENNESSY

• D forgot to take insulin
• stole a car and used insanity as defence

QUICK

• D took insulin and then didn't eat
• assaulted someone
• insulin held to be an external factor - if the cause of the unkowing state is an external factor, insanity cannoy apply

DUE TO:

1. unconsciousness or impaired consciousness

2. mental condition that causes D to not know what he is doing

WINDLE

• D had mental condition and killed his wife
• confessed to the police - showed he was aware what he was doing was legally wrong

JOHNSON

• a paranoid schizophrenia stabbed someone to death
• he knew what he did was wrong - defence did not apply

BRATTY:

'an act done by the muscles without the consciousness or control of the defendant'

NON-INSANE AUTOMATISM:

• the cause of automatism is external

R V T: stress can be an external factor that causes automatism

A'G's REFERENCE: there must be a 'total destruction of voluntary control' for non-insane automatism to apply

'Where D knows his act is likely to bring on an automatic state'

BAILEY

• D took insulin and didn't eat
• hit V on the head with an iron bar
• ruled that offences of specific intent allow self-induced automatism as a defence - there is no mens rea

BUT BASIC INTENT CRIMES DO NOT - THESE ALLOW RECKLESSNESS AS MENS REA AND KNOWINGLY INDUCING AN AUTOMATIC STATE IS ALREADY RECKLESS!

1. D must not have acted recklessly

2. D must not be intoxicated

3. D must not have been aware that his acts were likely to cause an automatic state

HARDIE

• D took valium to calm himself down
• adverse effect caused him to burn down a wardrobe
• D did not expect valium to cause this automatic state and he therefore was not reckless - DEFENCE OF AUTOMATISM APPLIED!

used to prove a lack of mens rea

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

• where D knowingly takes an intoxication substance
• this defence cannot apply to basic intent crimes...
• ...it is held that becoming intoxicated is already a reckless act! (stated by Lord Elwyn-Jones)

(...and present in MAJEWSKI)

• D voluntarily took drugs and drank alcohol
• attacked people
• defence of voluntary intoxication did not apply

CAN APPLY TO SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES...

• these do not allow recklessness as a mens rea
• so if you do not have direct intent, you cannot be guilty!

SHEEHAN AND MOORE

• Ds were drunk threw petrol on a tramp and set him alight
• he died (MURDER - A SPECIFIC INTENT CRIME!)
• although the intoxication was voluntary, the defence of intoxication showed the Ds could not form the mens rea
• their convicton was quashed

D did not know he was taking an intoxicating sustance... drink spiked, adverse effect of presciption medication etc.

Can apply to either specific or basic intent crimes.... but not where the mens rea is formed!

KINGSTON

• D has perverted thoughts
• drank a spiked coffee
• indecently assaulted a young boy
• GUILTY as he formed the mens rea for the offence

SECTION 3 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1967

'a person may use as much force as is reasonable in that circumstance in the prevention of crime'

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2009:

1. the degree of force must be necessary in the circumstance as D believed it to be

WILLIAMS

• D attacked a man who he believed was hurting a young boy
• the V was actually a police officer arresting the boy
• D used 'self-defence' as he believed the force he used was necessary in trying to save the boy - the situation in which he believed it to be

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND IMMIGRATION ACT 2009:

2. D must not be intoxicated when he makes a mistake in force

3. D should not be expected to calculate the exact amount of force required

4.D must 'honestly and instinctively' believe the force to be reasonable

when V consents, you have a defence!

WE CANNOT CONSENT TO BODILY HARM! (assault/battery+)

A-G's REFERENCE

• Ds fought eachother
• ABH resulted
• consent defence did not apply as no one can consent to bodily harm - this case established this

BROWN

• consenting men engaged in sadomasochism
• left with bodily harm
• charged with s.47 and s.20 crimes as no one can consent to bodily harm!

BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

1. CONTACT SPORTS

BARNES: V suffered with leg injuries after tackling in football

• if tackling was not within the rules of football, consent would not apply!

2. BODY ADORNMENT

WILSON: husband branded consensual wife's bum with hot metal knife

• likened to a tattoo, which is also allowed by the COA

3. HORSEPLAY

JONES: schoolboys played

• two people engaging in horseplay do not intend to harm, but are consensual

CONSENT MUST BE TRUE OR IT CANNOT APPLY!

TABASSUM

• Vs consented to having their breasts examined by man who posed as a doctor
• consent WAS NOT TRUE as the did not consent to the poser examining them!

OLUGBOJA

• V watched her friend being *****
• she consented to sex with the ****** through fear
• this was NOT TRUE CONSENT!

By putting ourselves in certain situations, we agree to what comes with!

So being oushed whilst shopping, having our feet stood on in public transport etc. is all consented to

WILSON V PRINGLE

• stated that 'everyday jostling' did not constitute battery

AITKEN

• Ds believed their friend would want to be set on fire
• they set him on fire
• he suffered 35% burns on his body
• CONSENT APPLIED

RICHARDSON & IRWIN

• D

AITKEN

• Ds believed their friend would want to be set on fire
• they set him on fire
• he suffered 35% body burns
• CONSENT APPLIED

RICHARSON & IRWIN

• Ds engaged in horseplay (which is consensual) with V
• they droped V over a balcony
• CONSENT APPLIED