General defences

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/17

flashcard set

Earn XP

Description and Tags

Last updated 6:40 PM on 3/22/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

18 Terms

1
New cards

2
New cards

D is judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be, even if he was mistaken- self defence

Gladstone Williams

3
New cards

There is no duty to retreat. You don't have to show you tried to run away before fighting back.- self defence

R v Bird

4
New cards

A defendant can strike a pre-emptive strike if they honestly believe an attack is imminent.

Beckford

5
New cards

A mistaken belief in the need for self-defence caused by voluntary intoxication is ignored by the court.

R v Taj

6
New cards

If the force used is excessive (too much), the defence fails entirely (Murder stays Murder).

R v Clegg

7
New cards

Established the two-stage test- duress

Graham test

1. Did D reasonably believe they were threatened?

2. Would a sober person of reasonable firmness have acted the same way?

8
New cards

The threat must be of death or serious injury

Valderrama-Vega

Threats to reveal secrets or financial loss aren't enough.

9
New cards

When looking at the "reasonable person," the jury can consider age, sex, and physical health, but not low IQ.

R v Bowen

10
New cards

There must be a nexus (link). The threat must be "Do this crime."

R v Cole

Cole was told to get money, but not specifically to rob a bank.

11
New cards

self induced duress

R v Hassan

If you voluntarily join a criminal gang, you cannot claim duress if they later threaten you.

12
New cards

Duress is not a defence to Murder

R v Howe

13
New cards

The "Rule": Voluntary intoxication is a defence to Specific Intent crimes (Murder/GBH s.18) but NOT Basic Intent crimes (Assault/Battery/ABH).

DDP v Majewski

14
New cards

D took LSD, thought he was fighting a snake, and killed his girlfriend. Voluntary intoxication meant no MR for murder, but he was convicted of Manslaughter (Basic Intent).

R v Lipman

15
New cards

"A drunken intent is still an intent." If D is drunk but still forms the MR, the defence fails.

R v Sheehan & Moore

16
New cards

Involuntary Intoxication: If D takes a drug that normally calms people (like Valium) but has an unpredictable reaction, they may have a defence for any crime.

R v Hardie

17
New cards

Involuntary intoxication (spiked drink) is no defence if the prosecution proves D still formed the Mens Rea despite being drugged.

Kingston

18
New cards

Explore top notes

note
The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)
Updated 693d ago
0.0(0)
note
Hinduism
Updated 1161d ago
0.0(0)
note
Chapter 8: DNA Electrophoresis
Updated 1135d ago
0.0(0)
note
learning and motivation 2/2/22
Updated 1283d ago
0.0(0)
note
Chapter 5: Entrepreneurship
Updated 1337d ago
0.0(0)
note
The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)
Updated 693d ago
0.0(0)
note
Hinduism
Updated 1161d ago
0.0(0)
note
Chapter 8: DNA Electrophoresis
Updated 1135d ago
0.0(0)
note
learning and motivation 2/2/22
Updated 1283d ago
0.0(0)
note
Chapter 5: Entrepreneurship
Updated 1337d ago
0.0(0)

Explore top flashcards