Defences

?
  • Created by: Kristina
  • Created on: 14-03-14 12:47
Y W W P J L L G E V F B N T V I K J E R U
S V O O N T B R G R T G N Q K W A J M W X
N K J R Q E R F R I C I J S F G W V P R I
E K X Y G K D W D R A V W O G F W N Q Y B
H A D U M C Q X G S A E L A N R E N Y E I
P Q V X P R N H S W J K R O O T I E V B O
E W Q K O T W U F A R D G L H W R J M G E
T C J R D X H Y M L V Y Y G R H P U M U Q
S B P R G L N Y Q D H A A I D W X S V E T
D G Q Y U S S N I T T N N U V C U P W X W
N D Q D K Y K C W D M O B I N L Y W J U V
A P B E D B K M N O S S K M L O B N M N L
Y A C E M I X A X D H S K I N G S T O N N
E B W R N M N A R X J S V M E M U U F J C
L B F S G O N A J J E A F O T A V N X O F
D A O T S G H I Q U N P N P F F B X L N O
U N T D B C C S Q N U X V I N P A H N H L
D S U Q I D N R W W J H E N N E S S Y E B
S H R R G B T O K P O O M K L F Y L L W M
G L V M M X W G Y J H Q X L H H B M X E P
Q H F C M L W V N C A A V C E D L O X C R

Clues

  • "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" (8)
  • Defence of duress available to all crimes except murder, attempted murder and treason (5, 7)
  • Defence to a s5 criminal damage charge is honest belief - her honest belief contributed to by self-induced intoxication (7, 1, 9)
  • 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)
  • 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) (8)
  • in deciding foresight, the jury should not have considered reasonable sober man, but these particular Ds if they were sober (s20 GBH) (10, 5)
  • Necessity is not a defence to the charge of murder (6, 3, 8)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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) (8)

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Defences resources »