Defences

1. 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 (6)
4. 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) (6)
5. 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 (5)
9. 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) (8)
10. 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 (5)

2. in deciding foresight, the jury should not have considered reasonable sober man, but these particular Ds if they were sober (s20 GBH) (10, 5)
3. 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 (8)
6. Defence of duress available to all crimes except murder, attempted murder and treason (5, 7)
7. Cannot take into account characteristics of defendant (6)
8. 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) (6, 3, 6)

Get Revising