Criminal Law Defences

Front 1

Smith

Back 1

Mistake as to the civil law

Front 2

DPP v Morgan

Back 2

A D who acted under a mistake of fact as to an element of the AR which negated the MR means he will not be liable

Front 3

Kimber

Back 3

applied Morgan to indecent assault

Front 4

Gladstone-Williams

Back 4

applied Morgan to s47 OAPA

Front 5

Forbes (Giles)

Back 5

a mistake which is irrelevant will not assist the D in any way

Front 6

Hasan

Back 6

mistake must be a reasonable one in the circumstances(includes duress)

Front 7

Beckford

Back 7

in crimes of violence, fatal and non fatal, it is an essential requirement of liability that the violence used was unlawful

Front 8

Jones

Back 8

a genuine mistaken belief that a victim was consenting to rough horseplay was a defence even if it was an unreasonable belief

Front 9

Gould

Back 9

a reasonable belief that one was no longer married would be a defence to a bigotry charge

Front 10

Stubbs

Back 10

Intoxication must be very extreme to be relied upon

Front 11

Bailey

Back 11

common knowledge that alcohol and drugs may lead to aggressive behaviour, they may be able to foresee such risk and persist anyway

Front 12

Beard

Back 12

voluntarily debauching and destroying your will power shall place you in no better position than a sober man

Front 13

Majewski

Back 13

evidence that D was voluntarily intoxicated at the time he committed the AR of an offence may, in certain circumstances result in finding the intoxication so affected the D's awareness that he lacked the MR. This only applies to crimes of strict intent

Specific intent offences-D will be acquitted as a sane automaton
Basic intent offences-if D is reckless it is no defence.
If D is not reckless he will be acquitted as a sane automaton

Front 14

Allen

Back 14

Majewski applies to voluntary intoxication only

Front 15

Lipman

Back 15

only applies to intoxication by alcohol or dangerous drugs

Front 16

Kingston

Back 16

a drugged intent is still an intent, the D must lack MR

even if D was involuntarily intoxicated if he formed the MR of the crime, he is guilty

Front 17

Hardie

Back 17

Majewski doesnt apply to intoxication by soporific drugs

Front 18

Gallagher

Back 18

Majewski doesnt apply to intoxication for 'dutch courage'

Front 19

Fotheringham

Back 19

an intoxicated mistaken belief as to the identity of one's victim is no defence

Front 20

Jaggard

Back 20

for criminal damage a mistaken belief can be intoxicated as long as it is honestly held

Front 21

Hatton

Back 21

a mistaken belief in the need to act in self defence which is due to voluntary intoxication cannot be relied upon

Front 22

Davis

Back 22

where intoxication brings on a disease of the mind so that the D is insane, the defence is insanity rather than intoxication

Front 23

Bratty

Back 23

any act done by the muscles without any control by the mind
defendants mind has no control over his limbs

Front 24

Broome v Perkins

Back 24

a total loss of voluntary control is a requirement

Front 25

Quick

Back 25

it must be caused by an external factor such as a blow to the head, or a swarm of bees-Hill & Baxter

Front 26

Bailey

Back 26

where d's automatism is self induced and hes charged with a specific intent offence he must be acquitted
-with basic intent offence, self induced automatism will not be convicted unless he was reckless as to being aggressive

Front 27

Insanity

Back 27

applicable to all crimes, D must prove he was insane

Front 28

M'Naghten rules on insanity

Back 28

D must labour under a defect of reason-Clarke
-caused by a disease of mind
=d did not know what he was doing and the physical consequences of his act-Codere

Front 29

Kemp

Back 29

disease of mind is a question of law, can be curable or temporary

Front 30

Sullivan

Back 30

malfunctioning of the faculties of reason, memory and understanding. recovery from epileptic fit can equal insanity

Front 31

Hennessy

Back 31

D who takes insufficient insulin is treated as being an insane automaton

Front 32

Burgess

Back 32

sleepwalking leads to defence of insanity

Front 33

R v T

Back 33

PTSD defence was one of sane automatism

Front 34

Windle

Back 34

D must have failed to realise his actions were legally wrong

Front 35

Kopsch

Back 35

the fact that D acted under an irresistible impulse might lend weight to a submission that the D didnt know what he was doing or that it was wrong

Front 36

Antoine

Back 36

with an unfit to plea defence the court undertakes a trial of the facts, doesnt consider whther D had MR. If D committed AR-absolute discharge, guardianship order or a supervision and treatment order and indefinite detention

Front 37

C&YPA s50

Back 37

children below 10 are incapable of committing a crime

Front 38

JTB

Back 38

defence of doli incapax is unavailable for D's between 10 and 14

Front 39

consent

Back 39

negates the actus reus of the unlawfulness of the assault-there is no assault

Front 40

self-defence

Back 40

if D uses reasonable force in self-defence, he does not apply ‘unlawful’ force and
therefore the actus reus is not established

Front 41

Anderson

Back 41

it is for the prosecution to disprove self-defence

Front 42

Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008 s.76.

Back 42

The defences are—
(a) the common law defence of self-defence; and
(b) the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or
section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (use of
force in prevention of crime or making arrest).

Front 43

Williams

Back 43

reasonable force is a question of fact for the jury
test is objective and depends on the jury’s view of whether a reasonable person would have used such force in the circumstances as perceived by the accused

Front 44

Beckford

Back 44

D must use (objectively) reasonable force in the circumstances as he (subjectively) saw them.

Front 45

Julien

Back 45

the courts will normally expect a defendant to indicate his willingness to ‘temporise and
disengage

Front 46

Bird

Back 46

everything depends on whether the defendant acted reasonably in standing his ground

Front 47

Attorney-General’s Reference
(No. 2 of 1983)

Back 47

it may be reasonable for D to make a pre-emptive strike to
prevent an attack which he apprehends is about to be made.

Self-defence (although embracing pre-emptive strikes), currently requires apprehension of an imminent attack

Front 48

Defence of property

Back 48

The same basic principles apply where D is defending his own or another’s property.

Front 49

Revill v Newbery

Back 49

the amount of force which will be permitted as
reasonable must surely be less where the motive is defence of property as opposed to
defence of person.

Front 50

The effect of the defence

Back 50

If the defence succeeds, whether common law or statutory, D’s conduct is regarded as
lawful and he is completely acquitted. It can be a defence to any crime including murder.

Front 51

Duress

Back 51

a defence (subject to strict rules) for one compelled to act under a threat of death or serious personal violence. This defence recognizes that although your limbs are under your physical control your will has been overcome

Front 52

Duress test - R v Graham

Back 52

(a) requires that D feels he has no other practical choice than to commit the ‘crime’
(B)whether a person of average firmness or resistance to threats, but
having D’s age and sex, and sharing any characteristics of D which would affect
the gravity of the threat to him, would have reacted by committing the crime
perpetrated by D.

Front 53

Safi

Back 53

Provided D’s belief that there is a threat is reasonable, there does not in fact have to be
such a threat

Front 54

Duress by threats

Back 54

Where D is forced by someone else to commit an offence under an immediate threat of serious harm befalling himself or someone else

Front 55

Hasan

Back 55

Cannot be used by those known to associate with violent criminals

Must cause the crime but need not be the sole reason for acting
Must be directed against D or his immediate family or a person for whose safety he deems himself responsible

Front 56

R v Howe

Back 56

Cannot be used as a defence to murder or attempted murder

Front 57

Lynch
Valderrama-Vega

Back 57

Must be threats of death or serious injury

Front 58

Hudson & Taylor

Back 58

the defence may fail for lack of immediacy, or no compulsion to commit the crime there and then, or D can avoid the harm.

Front 59

Abdul-Hussain

Back 59

House of Lords preferred immediacy to imminence

Front 60

Bowen

Back 60

psychiatric conditions / mental illness and physical disability are all potentially attributable to D since they may make him less able to resist the threats

Front 61

Willer

Back 61

Duress of circumstances was accidentally invented by the Court of Appeal. The test is the same

D’s response must be proportionate: no more harm must be done than that which is absolutely necessary to avoid the threat

Front 62

Necessity

Back 62

In many of the duress of circumstances cases, the Court of Appeal and House of Lords have treated the defence of duress of circumstances as synonymous with the term “necessity”

Front 63

Re F

Back 63

there is no requirement of a threat of death or serious injury and thus no need to inquire into the equivalence of pain and injury; the defence is potentially available to all crimes, even murder (Re A); and, there is no requirement of immediacy: the principle is one of necessity not emergency

Front 64

London Borough of Southwark v Williams

Back 64

necessity would open a door which no man could shut

Front 65

F v West Berkshire Health Authority

Back 65

Medical Necessity

Front 66

Re A (conjoined twins)

Back 66

(1) the act is needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil;
(2) no more should be done than is reasonably necessary for the purpose to be achieved; and
(3) the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided