Defences cases

Question 1

CONSENT Pretty

Answer 1

Consent is NEVER available for murder / Assisted dying

Question 2

CONSENT: Burrell v Harmer

Answer 2

D gave two underage boys tattoos. They suffered inflamed arms.
HELD: They were too young to give valid consent as they do not have legal capacity

Question 3

CONSENT Tabassum

Answer 3

D told v’s he worked for Christies hospital and was compiling a database on breast cancer. He carried out physical examinations on their breasts.
HELD: There is no true consent as he lied about his identity.
: Fraud can remove consent if the V does not know the identity of D (Tabassum)

Question 4

CONSENT Dica

Answer 4

D had unprotected sex with 2 women without telling them that he was HIV positive. Both women were infected as a result.
HELD: D was found guilty of s.20 GBH as the women were unaware about the quality of the act.

Question 5

CONSENT Leach

Answer 5

Consent is never available for s.18 GBH OAPA 1861 .

Question 6

CONSENT AG’s Ref. No.6 of 1980

Answer 6

Properly conducted games and sports (like boxing) are lawful activities for s.47 ABH and s.20 as they can be consented to.
Two boys had an argument in a street. They decided to settle their difference in a fight, which resulted in the V suffering bruising and a bloody nose.
HELD: The CA held that consent was not valid as the fight was not held under the Queensbury rules.

Question 7

CONSENT Wilson

Answer 7

You can consent to tattooing/branding in sex.D branded his initials onto his wife’s buttock. D was convicted of s.47 ABH.
HELD: The CA allowed the appeal and extended the meaning of tattooing to include branding

Question 8

CONSENT Slingsby

Answer 8

Inadvertent violence – the defence is allowed when accidental injuries occur during sexual activity (Slingsby).

Question 9

CONSENT Brown

Answer 9

A group of male adult sadomasochists (S&M) were convicted of s.47 and s.20 offences. The activities were carried out in private and recorded on video for the sole use of group members.
HELD: The HL’s rejected an appeal against conviction because it was not in the public interest for D to cause bodily harm for ‘no good reason’.

Question 10

CONSENT Lock

Answer 10

D and V consented to re-enact a scene of sadomasochism from Fifty Shades of Grey. D was charged with s.47 ABH which he admitted inflicting but said that V consented.
HELD: D was acquitted at the Crown Court after the jury accepted that this was consensual behaviour between adults.

Question 11

CONSENT Jones

Answer 11

Two schoolboys aged 14 and 15 were tossed into the air by older youths. One victim suffered a broken arm and the other a ruptured spleen. The defendants claimed they believed that the two victims consented to the activity.
Horseplay: Consent is valid for rough and undisciplined horseplay e.g. in the playground (Jones).

Question 12

SELF-DEFENCE Williams (Gladstone)

Answer 12

V saw another man trying to rob a woman in the street. He chased after him and managed to grab him. Williams had not seen the robbery and punched V. During his trial for ABH, the defendant said that he had mistakenly thought that Mason was attacking the other man. He had therefore stepped in to defend him.
HELD: On appeal, D’s conviction was quashed. The court held that his mistake had to be honest but need not be reasonable. Obviously though, the more unreasonable the belief, the less likely the jury are to believe that defendant honestly held it.
-> D must be judged on the facts as he genuinely believed them to be

Question 13

SELF-DEFENCE O’Grady

Answer 13

D fell asleep drunk and woke to find his friend hitting him so he retaliates. D found his friend dead the next morning.
HELD: Intoxication failed as manslaughter is a crime of basic intent and D had been reckless in becoming intoxicated, therefore a drunken intent is still an intent.

Question 14

SELF-DEFENCE Martin

Answer 14

CONTROVERSIAL HOMEOWNERS CASE: Martin shot burglars when they came into his house, one was killed from a bullet in the back.
HELD: The-defence could not be used due to the fact they were running away - means it wasn’t self defence.

Question 15

SELF-DEFENCE Deana

Answer 15

It is not absolutely necessary that the D be attacked first and D is entitled to ‘get his blow in first if it is reasonably necessary to do so’

Question 16

SELF-DEFENCE Clegg

Answer 16

If it is seen as disproportionate or excessive force the defence will fail

Question 17

SELF-DEFENCE Bird

Answer 17

D and her ex started an argument and she threw a drink over him. V slapped D and pushed her against a wall. D then pushed a glass into V’s face which gouged his eye out.
HELD: The court held that self-defence was valid and she did not need to show withdrawal.

Question 18

INTOXICATION DPP v Majewski

Answer 18

D was drinking heavily in a pub and attacked several people. D was charged with s.47 ABH and assault but claimed he had completely blanked out so raised the defence of intoxication.
HELD: The House of Lords held that an intoxicated state is no defence as ‘it is a reckless course of conduct and recklessness is enough to constitute the necessary mens rea’.

Question 19

INTOXICATION Allen

Answer 19

It’ll still be voluntary intoxication if D thought they were drinking a drink with a lower alcohol percentage than they actually were as they were still drinking - MR for recklessness still there

Question 20

INTOXICATION AG v Gallagher

Answer 20

D formulated a plan to kill his wife and bought a knife. He then drank whisky in order to give him the courage to carry out the murder.
HELD: Lord Denning held that intoxication could not provide a defence as D had already formed the mens rea before the intoxication took place.

Question 21

INTOXICATION Fotheringham

Answer 21

An intoxicated mistake will not provide a defence to a crime of basic intent

Question 22

INTOXICATION Kingston

Answer 22

D was known to have paedophiliac and homosexual tendencies. A former business associate lured a 15-year-old boy to D’s flat and drugged them both. He photographed and tape recorded the D abusing the boy. D claimed involuntary intoxication as a defence.
HELD: D was convicted of indecent assault as despite the effect of any drugs, he still possessed the necessary MR. The Law Lords stated that a drunken intent is still intent!

Question 23

INTOXICATION Bailey

Answer 23

D took his prescribed diabetes medication but failed to eat afterwards.
HELD: even though they were prescribed drugs, he had been reckless to taking them, so the defence of intoxication failed.

Question 24

LOSS OF CONTROL jewell