Criminal Offences and Defences Key Cases

DPP v Brown

Garda prisoner case

Assault has the same meaning in section 2 as it does in section 3

However, section 3 and 4 cannot use consent as a defence (do NOT include “without lawful consent”)

• except for section 3A (strangulation)

DPP v Kirwan

Eye case

Serious harm does not require long-term or permanent damage

• side effects associated with injury does imply serious harm

DPP v O’Brien

Spar syringe case

Mens rea is not the state of mind of the victim, but the intention or recklessness of the accused

2 part test for justifiable use of force (subjective):

• did the accused honestly believe the force was necessary

• was it reasonable in the circumstances that the honest belief existed

DPP v Woods

Gaps can still constitute persistency in harassment

DPP v Cagney and McGrath

criticized the use of endangerment as a “fallback” charge for manslaughter when a more specific established offence, like assault, is available

• s.13 was designed to fill a gap in the law, not act as a replacement for traditional offences

DPP v O’Loughlin

Farm equipment case

The test for honesty/dishonesty is subjective

• should be determined by a jury

Set up a two part test:

• whether the accused honestly believed (they were entitled to take the property)

• whether, based on that honest belief, the act could be excused.

  • was the force used reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be

DPP v Keating

Shoplifting but never left the store

There has to be dishonest intention of deprivation for theft to occur

• doesn’t have to leave a store or the premises to be liable

Lynch v Anderson

Defective charge sheet

Trespass is an element of burglary, not a stand alone offence.

Burglary = trespass + intention to commit an arrestable offence

• arrestable offence must be specified

R v Brown

Sticking a body part (arm) in to grab something can count as entry

R v Kelly

Tools that are not weapons of offence, often, do not count towards aggravated burglary

Minister for Justice v Laks

Overdrawn checks case

Deception requires dishonesty (part of mens rea)

DPP v Barnes

The defence of non-fatal use of force cannot be used by someone who is accused of burglary (s.18(7) of the NFOAP Act 1997)

ALSO cannot kill a burglar because they are a burglar

DPP v MC

Resistance is not necessary for rape

DPP v Morgan

Created the subjective test for honest belief of consent:

If the accused “honestly believed” the woman was consenting even though a reasonable person would not have believed. the fault or mens rea element of rape has not been proved and the accused is therefore not guilty

• sustained in DPP v CO’R

DPP v FN

Sexual assault does not require a sexual motive

• reversing DPP v FM

CW v Minister for Justice

Burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the accused

• accused cannot be required to prove their mistake as to a fact

DPP v Whelan

Duress: threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance

• often an objective test for determining the applicability of duress

DPP v Gleeson

Duress requires that one has to obey the law and take reasonable steps to do so and to prove that there was no other reasonable decision than the one they made.

Requirements for duress:

• reasonable belief that a threat has been made that will be carried out unless the offence is committed

• there is no reasonable way that the threat can be rendered ineffective

• the conduct is a reasonable response to the threat

R v Loughnan

3 elements for necessity:

• avoiding serious consequences

• imminent peril

• proportion

R v Taafe

For mistake, “a man must be judged upon the facts as he believes them to be”

Doyle v Wicklow County Council

3 limb test for Insanity:

• evidence that the accused person was suffering from a mental disorder when they committed the criminal act

• this mental disorder rendered them not responsible for the act (causal link)

• the mental disorder has affected the accused in one of three ways:

  • they were unable to appreciate the nature or quality of their act

  • they did not know that the act was wrong

  • they were unable to restrain themselves from committing the act.

Bratty v AG of Northern Ireland

Automatism can only be used where one’s lack of awareness or control is caused by an external factor, not an internal one

• epilepsy is a defence of insanity because it is a disease of the mind

Includes muscle spasms and reflexes as an enternal influence

DPP v Reilly

Self-induced automatism: the defendant drank before bed, causing him to sleep walk and kill a baby in the room.

• also an act of voluntary intoxication, meaning intoxication cannot be used as a defence

DPP v Beard

Voluntary intoxication is not a defence to crimes of basic intent, but may be a defence to crimes of specific intent if it prevents the accused from forming the necessary mens rea

• can be a partial defence for crimes requiring specific intent

Affirmed by Majewski