Defences

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Kristina
  • Created on: 14-03-14 12:47
S34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Rebuttable presumption of doli incapax (a child aged 10 or over) abolished
1 of 37
Re JTB
The entire doli incapax defence is abolished, not just the rebuttable presumption
2 of 37
S1 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act
acquittal on grounds of insanity
3 of 37
M'Naghten
"such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know it was wrong"
4 of 37
Clarke
M'Naghten rules require "deprived of the power of reason" not a "momentary failure to concentrate" by someone retaining her ordinary powers of reasoning (fit of absentmindness when shopping from depression)
5 of 37
Quick (mixed/mildly negative judicial treatment)
"disease of the mind" requires malfunctioning of the mind caused by disease; does not include malfunctioning due to external factor (this would be automatism) (nurse took insulin, assault occasioning ABH on hospital patient)
6 of 37
Sullivan
epilepsy a disease of the mind, sufficient for insanity (kicking a man violently while suffering a seizure; judges v reluctant to describe this as insanity but was proper)
7 of 37
Burgess
Insanity can be a transitory state (D hitting V with a bottle and video recorder and then grasped her neck - sleepwalking insanity, insane automatism - disease of mind diff from disease of brain)
8 of 37
Hennessy
Trial judge correct to rule that insanity was correct defence for hypoglycaemia after NOT taking insulin (TWOCing and driving while disqualified; disease of the mind of diabetes not external factors of insulin/stress/anxiety etc)
9 of 37
Johnson
re not knowing what he was doing was wrong, means wrong as in contrary to law (upholding Windle) (schizophrenic stabbing neighbour w/ knife and threatening friend's father)
10 of 37
Majewski
the recklessness involved in self-induced intoxication is sufficient to constitute the MR for a basic intent crime, but for a specific intent crime the defendant may be able to prove he was too intoxicated to form the intent (re ABH in a pub)
11 of 37
Bailey
Self-induced intoxication OTHER from drugs or alcohol may be a defence to a basic intent crime - D needs to know his actions/inactions are likely to make him aggressive for recklessness (s18, hit man w/ iron bar, not taking food after insulin)
12 of 37
Hardie
Jury should be directed to consider whether substance deprived D of ability to appreciate risks to persons or property, and if so, was he reckless in taking it? (took multiple valium as woman said they would do no harm; valium different drug)
13 of 37
Allen
Ignorance of precise strength of alcohol does not making drinking involuntary where the accused knew he was drinking alcohol (indecent assault and buggery; said he did not realise strength of wine)
14 of 37
Lipman
self-induced intoxication is no defence to unlawful act manslaughter as it is a basic intent crime (LSD trip; went with V to her room where she suffered two blows to the head and a sheet crammed into her mouth)
15 of 37
Heard
crimes of basic intent are those where the only intent required is intent to do the conduct; intentional touching only for sexual assent is basic intent (sexual character & belief in consent objectively judged) so voluntary intoxication no defence
16 of 37
Kingston
The absence of D's moral fault does not itself suffice to negative the MR - necessary intent was present when the act was done so involuntary intoxication not open to D
17 of 37
Richardson & Irwin
in deciding foresight, the jury should not have considered reasonable sober man, but these particular Ds if they were sober (s20 GBH)
18 of 37
Jaggard v Dickinson
Defence to a s5 criminal damage charge is honest belief - her honest belief contributed to by self-induced intoxication
19 of 37
s76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
D may not rely on mistaken belief induced by voluntary intoxication re reasonable force in self defence
20 of 37
S3 Criminal Law Act 1967
reasonable force in prevention of crime/effecting or assisting lawful arrest
21 of 37
S76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
whether force is reasonable depends on circs as D believed them to be etc - does not matter if mistaken; to be more than reasonable in householder case requires grossly disproportionate, just disprop. for others
22 of 37
Clegg
Defence of self-defence does not allow a reduction of murder down to manslaughter where force was excessive; either succeeds or fails
23 of 37
Martin
Cannot take into account characteristics of defendant
24 of 37
Keane
self-defence may be a defence for the original aggressor but only if the violence by the victim was so out of proportion that the roles were in effect reversed
25 of 37
Hichens
self defence CAN extend to force against an innocent third party to prevent crime being committed by someone else
26 of 37
Hudson and Taylor
duress provides a defence if the will of the accused has been so overborne that the commission of the act was no longer voluntary act of the accused (must be effective and present)
27 of 37
Abdul-Hussain
Defence of duress available to all crimes except murder, attempted murder and treason
28 of 37
Howe
Duress not a defence to the charge of murder, therefore also not available to principals in 2nd degree
29 of 37
Gotts
Duress not a defence to the charge of attempted murder b/c of sanctity of human life and its protection - no justification to award it to attempted murder but not murder
30 of 37
Bowen
whether a person of reasonable firmness of the age and sex of the defendant would have acted as he did - sometimes health and physical disability, mostly JUST age and sex
31 of 37
Z
D not able to rely on duress where as a result of his association with known criminals he HAD foreseen or OUGHT reasonably to have foreseen the risk of being subjected to compulsion by threats of violence
32 of 37
Dudley and Stephens
Necessity is not a defence to the charge of murder
33 of 37
Conway
Defence of duress of circumstances is only available if OBJECTIVELY D could be said to be acting in order to avoid death or serious injury
34 of 37
Martin
necessity 1. may D have been acting b/c as a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation he had good reason to fear that death or serious injury would otherwise result 2. may a sober person of reasonable firmness & same characteristi
35 of 37
Quayle
Duress of circumstances/necessity not available for cannabis offences for pain
36 of 37
Re A
Necessity, not duress of circumstances, b/c doctors' wills were not overwhelmed - not usually defence to murder but no victim selected - restricted to medical necessity
37 of 37

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

The entire doli incapax defence is abolished, not just the rebuttable presumption

Back

Re JTB

Card 3

Front

acquittal on grounds of insanity

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

"such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know it was wrong"

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

M'Naghten rules require "deprived of the power of reason" not a "momentary failure to concentrate" by someone retaining her ordinary powers of reasoning (fit of absentmindness when shopping from depression)

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Defences resources »