General Defences

?
What is the difference between general defences and special defences?
Special defences are for murder.
1 of 47
Insanity
A general defence, available to all offences. In general, every man is presumed to be sane. D must have been insane when he committed the act. Insanity is not a complete defence. The burden of proof is on D.
2 of 47
R v M'Naghten
D must prove that at the time of committing the act: there was a defect of reason, which must have been a result of a disease of the mind, causing the D to not know the nature and quality of their act or he didnt know what he did was wrong.
3 of 47
Clarke (1972)
It was held that a 'defect of reason' only appliesto a person, who by reason of a 'disease of the mind', are deprived of their power of reasoning. The rules don't apply to people who have moments of confusion or absent-mindedness.
4 of 47
Kemp (1956)
The CA ruled that D's ordinary mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding had been affected, so he came within the rules of insanity. A 'disease of the mind' can be temporary.
5 of 47
Sullivan (1983)
The HL ruled that the source of the epilepsy was irrelevant and it didn't matter if the impairment was permanent or temporary provided that it existed at the time that D committed the act.
6 of 47
Quick (1973)
The CA ruled that his condition wasn't within the rules of insanity, as it was caused by an external factor (insulin) so they could rely on automatism.
7 of 47
Hennessey (1989)
It was held that he was affected by an internal factor (diabetes), so was 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
8 of 47
Windle (1952)
Saying 'i suppose they will hang me for this', proved that he knew that his act was legally wrong, so could not rely on the defence of insanity.
9 of 47
Automatism
A general defence, available to all offences. It is a complete defence, resulting in a complete acquittal.
10 of 47
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland
Automatism is defined as 'an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind...or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing.
11 of 47
Attorney Generals Reference (No.2)
The CA ruled that automatism should only be available where there is a total destruction of voluntary control, a partial loss of control is insufficient.
12 of 47
Self-induced automatism
Voluntarily getting into the automatic state. The reliability of the defence, depends on the level of awareness and if it is a basic or specific intent crime.
13 of 47
Specific Intention
It is any crime where only an intention (direct or oblique) will satisfy the MR. Eg) S.18 GBH or murder.
14 of 47
Basic Intention
It is any offence where the MR can be satisfied through D being reckless. Eg) S.39, s.47, s.20.
15 of 47
Self-induced automatism intention availability
If it is specific intent, then it can be a defence as D could lack the required MR. If it is basic intent, can't use the defence. Unless, D doesn't know the act will lead to the state.
16 of 47
Bailey
CA ruled that is the offence is one of specific intent, then self-induced automatism can be a defence as D could lack the required MR.
17 of 47
Consent
A complete defence, resulting in a full acquittal. It is not available to all offences. A perosn can't consent to murder and euthanasia is illegal (Pretty).
18 of 47
Wilson v Pringle
The ordinary jostlings of everyday life are not a battery.
19 of 47
Brown's exceptions on the grounds of public policy
Properly conducted games or sports, reasonable surgical interference, tattooing, body piercing, horseplay, dangerous exhibitions.
20 of 47
Brown (1993)
Consent was not a defence, as SM activities are not conducive to the enhancement or enjoyment of family life or to the welfare of society.
21 of 47
Wilson (1996)
Consent was a defence, as it fell within the exceptions on the grounds of public policy (tattooing)
22 of 47
Richardson
Consent was a defence, as there was no fraud (deception) as to the nature and quality of the dental work.
23 of 47
Tabassum
There was no true consent. They consented to touching for medical purposes, not to indecent behaviour. There was cxonsent to the nature, but not the quality of the act.
24 of 47
Dica
There was no true consent, as they consented to the nature (sex without the risk of infection), but not the quality (contracting HIV) of the act.
25 of 47
Barnes (Sports)
Most sports have their own enforcable rules and codes of conduct, so a criminal prosecution should be reserved for situations where the conduct was sufficiently grave.
26 of 47
Jones (horseplay)
D engaged in 'rough' and undisciplined play not intending to cause harm and genuinely believed that the injuries occurred during the horseplay did so with consent.
27 of 47
Slingsby
V's consent meant that there was no battery or other form of assault, and so D was not guilty of manslaughter as there was no unlawful act.
28 of 47
Emmett
The consent did not provide a defence for her partner, as violence involving the deliberate and intentional infliction of bodily harm for the purpose of sexual gratification will not be accepted.
29 of 47
Intoxication
A general defence, only available in some circumstances.
30 of 47
Intoxication definition
Where someone is intoxicated/poisoned through alcohol or drugs and this defence can negate the MR of a crime.
31 of 47
Voluntary Intoxication definition
Where D takes alcohol or drugs of his own free will. It can also occur where D knows the effect of a prescribed drug to make him intoxicated.
32 of 47
Sheehan and Moore
Intoxication was a defence to the specific intent crime of murder, but they were found guilty of manslaughter; as a drunken intent is still an intent.
33 of 47
AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher
D had the necessary MR, despite his intoxicated state, so he was convicted of murder.
34 of 47
Majewski
Voluntary intoxicvation can only be raised as a defence for crimes of specific intent - not crimes of basic intent.
35 of 47
Involuntary intoxication definition
Where D does not know he is taking alcohol or drugs, or is not aware of the effects.
36 of 47
Kingston
Defence was not allowed, as it could still be proven that he did intend the acts.
37 of 47
Hardie
The drugs were not known to be dangerous, so he had not been reckless.
38 of 47
Self Defence / Prevention of Crime
Defence to any crime if taken to defend oneself, another or in the prevention of crime. They are complete defences.
39 of 47
Self-defence is a
common law defence outlined in the case of Palmer
40 of 47
Prevention of crime is a
statutory defencein s3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967
41 of 47
Both SD +POC
have been clarified and up[dated under s.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 1967
42 of 47
2 elements for SD+ POC
necessity of force and reasonableness of force
43 of 47
Necessity of force
(subjective) D had only done what he honestly and instictively thought wasnecessaryatthe time (Gladstone Williams). The D is not under duty to retreat and may strike first (Bird).
44 of 47
Reasonableness of force
Palmer 'it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action'. Force used in Clegg and Martin was excessive and unreasonable.
45 of 47
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s.76 (6)
the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in the circumstances.
46 of 47
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (householder) s.43
in a householder case, the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be, if it was grossly disproportionate.
47 of 47

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

A general defence, available to all offences. In general, every man is presumed to be sane. D must have been insane when he committed the act. Insanity is not a complete defence. The burden of proof is on D.

Back

Insanity

Card 3

Front

D must prove that at the time of committing the act: there was a defect of reason, which must have been a result of a disease of the mind, causing the D to not know the nature and quality of their act or he didnt know what he did was wrong.

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

It was held that a 'defect of reason' only appliesto a person, who by reason of a 'disease of the mind', are deprived of their power of reasoning. The rules don't apply to people who have moments of confusion or absent-mindedness.

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

The CA ruled that D's ordinary mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding had been affected, so he came within the rules of insanity. A 'disease of the mind' can be temporary.

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 General defences resources »