Self defence and intoxication

Self-defence

Legal justification for using force to protect oneself.

Common Law

Traditional legal principles governing self-defence cases.

Statutory Defence

Legal protection under specific statutes like CJIA.

Householder Cases

Self-defence cases involving a dwelling's protection.

S76 CJIA

Section outlining self-defence rules in England.

Subjective Test

Assessment based on defendant's beliefs and perceptions.

R V William Gladstone

Case establishing subjective belief in self-defence.

Genuine Belief

A belief that can be mistaken but sincere.

Intoxication Exclusion

Intoxication cannot justify a mistaken belief.

Pre-emptive Strike

Defendant can act first if genuinely threatened.

R V Bird

Case allowing pre-emptive strikes in self-defence.

Preparatory Acts

Illegal actions can still constitute self-defence.

Aggressor Rule

Self-defence generally unavailable if defendant initiated violence.

R V Rashford

Case allowing self-defence if response is disproportionate.

Mental Health Conditions

Mental health can influence perceived necessity of force.

R V Oye

Case recognizing mental health in self-defence beliefs.

Objective Test

Assessment based on reasonable person's perspective.

Grossly Disproportionate

Force that is excessively beyond the threat faced.

R V Ray

Case defining 'grossly disproportionate' in self-defence.

CJIA 2008

Legislation governing self-defence in household cases.

Trespasser Belief

Defendant must believe victim is unlawfully present.

Reasonableness Standard

Jury assesses if force was reasonable in context.

Disproportionate Force

Force exceeding necessary level for self-protection.

Disproportionate Force

Use of force exceeding what is necessary.

Objective Reasonableness

Assessment of force based on reasonable person standard.

Householder's Question

Was force reasonable despite being disproportionate?

Intruder Shock

Emotional response to unexpected home invasion.

Vulnerability of Others

Presence of defenseless individuals, especially children.

Weapon Consideration

Presence of weapons affects force justification.

Intruder's Conduct

Past behavior of intruder influences force assessment.

Self-Defence Justification

Force is reasonable if self-defence is established.

Jury's Role

Evaluate circumstances and perceptions of the defendant.

Instinctive Response

Immediate reaction to threat without premeditation.

Proportionality Test

Force must match level of threat faced.

R V Ray

Case establishing self-defence criteria in law.

R V Clegg

Shooting after threat passed not justified.

R V Martin

Shooting retreating burglar deemed excessive force.

Common Law Self-Defence

Legal principles governing self-defence claims.

Statutory Defence

Legal allowance for reasonable force in crime prevention.

Criminal Law Act 1967

Legislation permitting reasonable force for lawful arrests.

Subjective Belief

Defendant's honest belief in necessity of force.

Public Defence Limitations

Does not cover recovery of stolen property.

S76(7) Consideration

Defendant's perception of necessary force is crucial.

Jury's Emotional Assessment

Jury considers defendant's feelings during incident.

Finality of Jury's Decision

Jury's conclusion on reasonableness determines self-defence.

Evidence of Instinctive Action

Strong indication of proportionality in self-defence.

Intoxication

State of being under influence of drugs/alcohol.

R V Coley

Case establishing intoxication as a defense.

Mens Rea

Mental state of intent required for liability.

Voluntary Intoxication

D chooses to consume intoxicants knowingly.

Involuntary Intoxication

D consumes intoxicants without knowledge or consent.

R V Groark

Case stating judge decides on intoxication relevance.

R V Sheehan and Moore

Drunken intent still counts as intent legally.

R V Allen

Case clarifying potency does not negate voluntary intoxication.

Specific Intent Crimes

Crimes requiring a specific mental state to convict.

Basic Intent Crimes

Crimes where recklessness suffices for liability.

DPP V Majewski

Case ruling no defense for recklessness in intoxication.

Dutch Courage

Using alcohol for confidence negates intoxication defense.

Partial Defense

Reduces liability instead of complete acquittal.

Acquittal

Legal judgment of not guilty for defendant.

Judge's Discretion

Judge decides on intoxication's impact on case.

Intoxicant

Substance causing intoxication, like drugs or alcohol.

Potency

Strength of an intoxicant affecting intoxication level.

Recklessness

Conscious disregard of a substantial risk.

Criminal Liability

Legal responsibility for committing a crime.

Intention

Purposeful mental state behind an action.

Defense

Legal argument to negate criminal liability.

Specific Intent Crimes

Crimes requiring intent to achieve a specific result.

Basic Intent Crimes

Crimes requiring only general intent to commit.

Voluntary Intoxication

Intoxication as a defense is not allowed.

Dutch Courage

Gaining confidence through alcohol or drugs.

Involuntary Intoxication

Unknowingly intoxicated; may serve as a defense.

R V Bailey

Case establishing involuntary intoxication defense.

R V Hardie

Case recognizing unexpected drug side effects.

Spiked Drink

Unaware of intoxication due to added substances.

Medical Practitioner Drugs

Unexpected side effects from prescribed medication.

Bratty Case

Established involuntary intoxication as a defense.

R V Kingston

Drunken intent is still considered intent.

Sober Enough to Form Intent

If sober, intoxication defense fails.

Intoxicated Mistake

Mistake preventing specific intent negates guilt.

O'Grady Case

Mistake preventing intent; no guilt for specific intent.

Hatton Case

Similar to O'Grady; mistake negates specific intent.

Robert's Scenario

Discusses murder liability and defenses for Robert.

Clarissa's Scenario

Discusses offenses and defenses for Clarissa's actions.

Henry's Scenario

Discusses theft liability and defenses for Henry.

Side Effects Disclosure

Impact of informing patient on intoxication defense.