duress introduction
when the defendant is put in a situation where they are forced to commit a crime
defendant scared of death or serious injury - cease to be an independent actor
defence for a all crimes but murder and manslaughter
two stage test
r v graham
duress by threats
threat must be of death or serious injury
defendant must have commit tje crime to avoid death or serious injury
threat does not have to be the only factor
r v cole
r v hudson and taylor
r v valderrama-vega
r v gill
r v wright
duress by circumstance
when the defendant is forced to act because of the surrounding circumstances
willer
watkins lj
r v abdul - hussain
r v bowen
r v martin
r v hassan
self induced duress
where the defendant acts in a way that could place them under duress. if they know the risk, they cannot use the defence
where the defendant voluntarily associates with criminals tje only time he can use the defence is if he did not foresee that they would try to make him commit an offence - reasonable
r v sharp
lord lane cj
r v ali
hasan (formally z)
r v shepherd
evaluation duress
newest is duress by circumstance which shows that it has been modernised and adapted
no definition in statute which means that the wording has to be interpreted
intoxication introduction
alcohol, drugs, other substabces
does not have a mens rea because of their intoxicated state, may not be guilty
does not provide a defence
voluntary intoxication
defendant has chosen to take an intoxicating substance
defendant knows the side effects of a prescribed drug will make them intoxicated
all mens rea must be removed
only available for crimes of specific intent
r v majewski
sheehan and moore
ag for northern ireland v gallagher
r v richardson and irwin
involuntary intoxication
defendant did not know they were taking an intoxicating substance
defendant would not have done the crime without being intoxicated
specific and basic crimes treated the same
r v kingston
lord taylor cj
r v hardie
r v allen
public policy arguments surrounding intoxication
assesses a decision in terms of how that decision will affect society as a whole
1. public should be protected from harm or danger caused by intoxicated people
2. intoxicated defendant should be treated more favourably than a sober defendant
direct casual link between intoxication and violent crimes
compromise through when intoxication can be held into account
r v lipman
r v church
intoxication évaluation
no definition in statute which means that the wording has to be interpreted
case law is old and may be a lack of guidance
self defence introduction
- Removes the actus reus of an offence, because it makes the use of force lawful.
- It’s a defence in common law which allows a defendant to use reasonable force to
(a) Defend himself from an attack
(b) Prevent an attack on another
(c) Defend his property
It is defined as ‘a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offences or of persons lawfully at large.’
Necessity of force
Two elementsmust be established to prove self-defence.
- Necessity of force questions ’was the force necessary?’.
- Force will not be justified if it is not necessary.
- Doesn’t matter if the D’s belief in use of force was mistaken
CASES
- R v Williams
- R v Bird
The defendant will be able to defend themselves even if the attack has not take place. The jury & court will take into account whether there was a possibility the D could have retreated.
S76(5) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
- If a D is voluntarily intoxicated and their belief of self defence is mistaken the defence cannot be used.
- The legal principle states that it does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.
Reasonableness of force
- Focuses on ’was the amount of force used reasonable?’
- Force used must be reasonable in the circumstances and proportionate to the threat.
- The D will be judged on whether he is doing what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary.
S76(4) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Where the force used is excessive, this indicates that the D acted unreasonably in the circumstances. Therefore, there would be no valid defence, & the D will liable.
R v Clegg
self defence evaluation
- No definition in statute
- Case law is limited
- Boundaries of reasonable are defined from common sense and native good judgement, this would be based on how the word is interpreted and it can be defined differently depending on the judge which would make the outcomes inconsistent.
insanity introduction
involves proving that at the time of the committing of the crime “he was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong”
m’naughten set the precedents for the rules of the defence
main rule is that “in all cases every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes”
defect of reason
the defendants powers of reasoning must be impaired
if there is not a defect of reason and the defendant is capable of reasoning but failed to use these powers, there is no defence
r v clarke
disease of the mind
legal term, not medical test
it can include mental and physical diseases which affects the mind
the court is concerned with the mind, not the brain
the disease must be an internal factor
the source of the disease is irrelevant; it can be temporary or permanent state as long as it exists at the time of the act
r v kemp
r v sullivan
r v hennessy
the defendant does not know the nature and quality of their act, or doesn’t know what he was doing was wrong
the defendant may not know due to actions unconsciously or may be conscious with their awareness being impaired
they were unaware of what they were doing was wrong
r v kemp
r v sullivan
r v burgess
r v hennessy
windle
johnson
non insane automatism introduction
lord denning: “an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking
bratty
the defendant must have a total loss of voluntary control
the defendant physically committed the actus reus involuntarily
there is a total loss of control
there is a lack of awareness
attorney-general reference
this must be caused by an external factor
the cause of the automatism must be external
the defendant will act involuntarily
the defendant will lack the mens rea
r v quick
hill v baxter
r v t
