Defences

Voluntary Intoxication

This means D is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or solvents of his own free will.

Majewski

The specific intent crime may be lowered to the lesser basic intent option._____________ Ds conduct in taking drink and drugs supplies the evidence of mens rea for basic intent crimes.

Sheehan & Moore

Their charge was reduced to manslaughter, as they did not have the mens rea for murder because of their intoxicated states.

AG for NI v Gallagher

Drunken intent is still intent

Lipman

there is no defence where the crime is one of basic intent (manslaughter).

Involuntary Intoxication

This is where D becomes intoxicated through no fault of their own; without Ds knowledge.

Kingston

D could not claim involuntary intoxication as a defence as it simply took away his resistance to commiting the crime - he had the MR anyway

Hardie

Involuntary intoxication was permitted as a defence where D took a prescription drug which made him react very differently than expected

Self-Defence

D uses force to protect himself, another person or property

s3 Criminal Law Act 1967

D can also use force to prevent a crime

Bailey - sd

Self-defence is for the jury to decide

s76 Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 - Necessary

D can rely on a genuine belief of circumstances even if they were mistaken in their belief the force was necessary, and even if the mistake was unreasonable.

Williams

D's mistaken belief that V was attacking someone was permitted as self-defence

Beckford

D can strike first in self-defence

Bird

D need not show a reluctance to fight in order to claim

AG’s Ref 2 of 1984

D can prepare to defend himself, even if it breaks the law

Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 - reasonable

D may not be able to weigh up the exact measure of necessary action; but if was doing what was honestly and instinctively necessary then reaonable action was taken

Clegg

Self-defence will fail if excessive force is used

Bratty v AG for NI

Automatism is "an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion"

Without any control by the mind

D must act completely without consciousness or control.

AG's Ref No 2 (1993)

For automatism "there must be a total destruction of voluntary control"

Broome v Perkins

Intermittent loss of consciousness while driving is not automatism

Hill v Baxter -External Cause

A swarm of bees would be an external cause for the purposes of automatism

R v T

Post-traumatic stress disorder following a rape would be an external cause

Whooley

Sneezing is an external cause

Cannot be Self-induced

automatism will fail for basic intent crimes where D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state. (Mcghee)

Bailey - A

Automatism cannot be self-induced, e.g. failing to eat after taking insulin

Hardie - A

Automatism was allowed as a defence as he did not realise the risk of the valium changing his behaviour

M'Naghten Rules - Insanity

1. D had a defect of reason; and

2. This was caused by a disease of the mind; so that

3. D either does not know the nature and quality of his act, or does but does not know it was wrong

defect of reason

D’s powers of reasoning are impaired.

Clarke

Absent-mindedness or confusion is not enough to amount to insanity

Disease of mind

second stage - i

Quick

The cause of insanity must be internal

Kemp

A condition affecting the blood supply to the brain, causing a temporary loss of consciousness was an internal cause for the purposes of insanity

Sullivan

Eplilepsy is a disease of the mind for the purposes of insanity (internal cause). It can be "permanent, transient or intermittent"

Hennessy

Diabetes is a disease of the mind for the purposes of insanity if it is due to D's failure to take insulin

Burgess

A sleep disorder causing sleep-walking is a disease of the mind

D does not know the nature & quality of the act, or, knows it but does not know it is wrong

D is in a state of unconsciousness, or is conscious but does not understand his act because of the mental condition.

Windle, Johnson

If D knows the nature and quality of his act is wrong he cannot claim insanity, even if he is suffering a mental illness

Duress

D is forced to commit a crime because of threats of death or serious injury.

Howe; Gotts

Duress is not available for murder (

Valderrama-Vega

D can be threatened with other things as long as there is also a threat of death or serious injury

Not threats to : 1)Lynch 2)Singh 3)Quayle 4)Baker and Williams

threats to property or to expose adultery or a threat of severe pain or psychological harm

Martin

The threat can be at D or family/friends & D’s mental condition affected his belief so it was taken into account.

Hasan

The threat can be at D’s passenger (Conway) or a person for whom D would reasonably regard themselves as responsible.

Cole

The threat must be for D to commit a specific crime. e.g repaying money =/= theft

The Graham Test Hasan

Did D honestly and reasonably believe life was in immediate danger? (Now an objective test and Would a sober person of reasonable firmness (sharing Ds characteristics) have responded in the same way (objective)?

(Bowen) (Hegarty).

not low IQ or

timidity/vulnerability

Sharp: failed Shepherd: allowed

If D brings the duress on himself it will not be allowed. 2C

Gill

There must be no time to escape/raise the alarm

(Hasan).

. The threat must be able to take effect as soon as the crime is committed. Immediacy is the “cardinal feature” of the defence

Duress of Circumstances

D is forced to commit a crime because of the situation he finds himself in

Effect of the defence of duress

Duress is an excuse. Its existence does not necessarily result in a not guilty verdict; it will depend on the jury’s view.

Pommell

He was allowed duress of circumstances as the situation he was in had forced him to be in possession of a weapon. The first ever use outside of driving offences.