Criminal Law General Defences PDF

WHAT IS AUTOMATISM? CRIMINAL LAW GENERAL DEFENCES A defence where the D does FOUR EXAMPLES OF EXTERNAL not have the men's rea for the FACTORS...

WHAT IS AUTOMATISM? CRIMINAL LAW GENERAL DEFENCES A defence where the D does FOUR EXAMPLES OF EXTERNAL not have the men's rea for the FACTORS offence, and was influenced WHAT OFFENCES CAN AUTOMATISM BE by external factors. USED FOR? 1. A swarm of bees 2. Hypnotised All offences. 3. Sneezing 4. A blow to the head AUTOMATISM WHAT CASES CAN BE USED? R v Bratty, AG Ref No2, WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH THE CASE OF and R v T BRATTY? The appellant suffered from psychomotor epilepsy and stated that at the time of the killing a terrible feeling came over him and he was not conscious of his actions. He tried to use the defence of automatism but the trial judge refused to allow this and directed the jury with regards to insanity.  WHAT OFFENCES ALLOW THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY? CRIMINAL LAW The burden of WHAT ARE THE RULES OF INSANITY BASED ON? GENERAL DEFENCES proving insanity is Available for all on the defence! M’Naghten Rules (1843) offences where mens WHEN D PROVES INSANITY, WHAT rea is required. CAN THE JUDGE IMPOSE? Three elements need to be A hospital order, proved: a guardianship order, A defect of reason. (D’s powers of a supervision and treatment order, reasoning must be impaired). Clarke an absolute discharge. Which will be the result of a disease of the mind. Kemp, Sullivan, WHAT IS THE LIMITATION OF THE DEFENCE OF INSANITY? Hennessy, Burgess Not available for strict liability INSANITY Causing the D not to know the offences where no mental nature and quality of his act or not element is required. to know he was doing wrong. WHAT CASES CAN BE USED? WHAT ARE THE TWO WAYS THE D MAY NOT KNOW R v M’Naghten (1843) THE QUALITY OF HIS ACT? Where the cause of the D R v Clarke (1972) Because he is in a state of unconsciousness being in a state where he R v Kemp (1956) does not know what he is or impaired consciousness or R v Sullivan (1989) doing is not a disease but when he is conscious but due to his mental an external cause then R v Burgess (1991) condition he does not understand or know this is NOT insanity. R v Quick (1973) R v Windle (1952) what he is doing.  WHAT IS SELF DEFENCE? CRIMINAL LAW GENERAL DEFENCES Under the common law, the D may use reasonable force to prevent crime, or to WHAT ACT? assist in the arrest of offenders or of those unlawfully at large. Under s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 WHAT ARE THE TWO ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENCE? the D may use reasonable force to defend himself, or another person, or a) subjective: the D must believe in property. the need to use force. It does not matter that this belief is in fact SELF-DEFENCE mistaken. Gladstone Williams HOWEVER, this rule does not apply if the mistake was caused by alcohol. O’Grady WHAT CASES CAN BE USED? R v Bird (1985) CA b) objective: the force used must be WHAT DOES THE CASE OF R V BIRD reasonable. Owino R v Martin (2002) CA SHOW? R v O’Grady (1987) CA HOWEVER: the D is not expected to R v Owino (1987) CA There is no need for the D to estimate precisely the amount of R v Palmer (1971) PC retreat prior to his use of force needed. R v Gladstone (1987) CA force. Palmer, Martin  WHAT IS INTOXICATION? WHAT OFFENCES ALLOW THE CRIMINAL LAW DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION? GENERAL DEFENCES Where the D claims that their For specific intent mental capacity for the offence offences WHAT CASES CAN BE USED? is reduced due to the s18 GBH, murder and R v Lipman (1970) R v Windle (1952) consumption of an intoxicating property. R v Bear (1999) R v Kingston (1994) substance. (Alcohol or drugs R v Gallagher (1963) R v Allen (1998) Lipman 1970) CONTRAST DPP v Majewski EXPLAIN THE TWO TYPES OF R v Shehan & Moore (1977) INTOXICATION Voluntary - the D is voluntarily EXPLAIN BASIC INTENT CRIMES intoxicated where they are aware INTOXICATION that they are consuming an Basic intent crimes are crimes whereby intoxicating substance. Sheehan the men's rea of the offence can be satisfied by recklessness, the men's rea is and Moore (1975), Gallagher not limited to intent, for example, assault, (1963) battery and assault occasioning actual EXPLAIN SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES bodily harm, s20 GBH. Majewski (1977) Involuntary - the D is involuntarily Specific intent crimes are crimes intoxicated where they are not whereby the men's rea of the aware that they are consuming an offence can only be satisfied by intoxicating substance, or that an proof of intention, not recklessness, intoxicating substance has been for example murder, s18 GBH, added to what they are consuming. wounding or theft. Kingston (1994), Allen (1998)  RULE FOR NON-FATAL CRIMES WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES CRIMINAL LAW OF CONSENT? GENERAL DEFENCES Consent is not a defence. Rule = consent may only be pleaded to the crimes of assault GENUINE CONSENT and battery and not to any more WHAT CASES CAN BE USED? Consent must be established serious crimes unless one of the R v Richardson (1998) as being genuine. following situations: R v Jones (1987) R v Richardson & Irwin Sporting activities involving (1999) physical contact. R v Brown (1993) R v Wilson (1996) Rough horseplay. R v Jones, CONSENT R v Richardson & Iwin SURGERY INCLUDING BODY PIERCING & TATTOOING R v Wilson R v Brown Husband used a hot poker stick to brand wife. D was D’s engaged in sadomasochistic homosexual activities charged with s47. He relied on consent saying his wife including genital torture and branding. The acts were consented to the branding. Judge ruled that this defence done in private and with everyone's consent. HL held was NOT ALLOWED on the basis of R v Brown. CA allowed that such activities were not good for society. they D’s appeal as Mrs Wilson had instigated the branding and failed to include this in the list of exceptions to the couldn’t do it herself so told her husband to do it for her. rules of consent.  WHAT IS DURESS? WHAT CRIMES CAN USE DURESS? CRIMINAL LAW D has been forced to commit that For all crimes except murder, GENERAL DEFENCES crime. D has committed that attempted murder and treason. WHAT CASES CAN BE USED? crime because they have been R v Howe (1987) R v Bowen (1996) threatened with death or serious injury. SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE TEST FOR THE R v Gotts (1992) R v Gill (1963) JURY - GRAHAM (1982) R v Valderrama - R v Hudson. and Vega (1985) Taylor (1971) 1. subjective: Was the D R v Martin (1989) R v Abdul-Hussain R v Conway (1989) (1999) compelled to act as he did R v Graham (1982) R v Hasan (2005) because he reasonably believed he had a good cause to fear PROBLEMS WITH DURESS serious injury or death? Martin Unavailability for murder, no allowances for low DURESS DP (2000) IQ, police protection 2. objective: if so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness DURESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES sharing the characteristics of D may be forced to act because of surrounding the accused have responded in circumstances. Willer (1986), Conway (1988), Martin (1989) the same way? Bowen (1996) Threats to family and friends can SELF-INDUCED DURESS be a defence to duress. The courts Where D has brought duress on himself through his actions, for example, now also allow a where a d voluntarily joins a criminal gang and commits offences but then complete Duress can only be used as a defence if is forced to commit other crimes which he did not want to do under stranger. the D is placed in a situation where he duress. Generally cannot use defence. Sharp (1987) Shephard (1987) has no safe avenue of escape.