Gen defences MCQs Flashcards
A woman, who never drinks alcohol, goes to a party. One of her friends thinks it would be funny to get her drunk. Her friend gives the woman fruit punch laced with vodka. The woman enjoys the punch, drinks several glasses and becomes very drunk. She tells the friend that she feels odd, and the friend explains that is because the punch is full of vodka. As a result, the woman pours the contents of her glass into the dog’s water bowl. The dog, which is small, drinks the contents of its bowl and becomes ill. The woman has damaged property belonging to another.
Does she have the mens rea for simple criminal damage?
She will have the mens rea if she saw the risk of damaging the dog even though drunk
She does not have the mens rea because she is intoxicated
She does not have the mens rea as she did not intend to endanger the life of the dog
She will have the mens rea if she would have seen the risk of damaging the dog had she been sober
She has the mens rea because she is intoxicated
She will have the mens rea if she saw the risk of damaging the dog even though drunk
Correct. This is involuntary intoxication. This can be used as a ‘defence’ to both specific and basic intent crimes, DPP v Majewski. Simple criminal damage is a basic intent crime. She can use evidence of her intoxication to show she did not form the mens rea. The mens rea of simple criminal damage is intention or recklessness as to damaging property belonging to another. She can use her drunken state to show she did not see a risk of damaging the dog. However, if she did see the risk, she will be liable as a drunken intent is still an intent, R v Kingston.
The other options were incorrect.
She will have the mens rea if she would have seen the risk of damaging the dog had she been sober- this is the test for basic intent crimes when the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated, R v Coley, McGhee and Harris.
She does not have the mens rea because she is intoxicated- her involuntary intoxication does not operate as an automatic defence.
She has the mens rea because she is intoxicated- this is not the test for a basic intent crime, even when the defendant is voluntarily intoxicated, see R v Coley, McGhee and Harris.
She does not have the mens rea as she did not intend to endanger the life of the dog- the mens rea of simple criminal damage is intention or recklessness as to damaging property belonging to another. It would be enough if she saw the risk of damaging the dog.
During a party, the hostess goes into her kitchen where she finds her boyfriend arguing with a man she has never seen before. The man grabs her boyfriend by the shoulders. Thinking the man was a stranger who had not been invited, the woman picks up a frying pan and brings it down on the man’s head, fracturing his skull. In fact, the man is her boyfriend’s cousin who had been invited to the party. The woman believed she was acting to protect her boyfriend.
Which test will be used to determine her whether the woman acted in self-defence?
Was the force grossly disproportionate?
Was the force reasonable?
Was the force proportionate?
Was the force grossly disproportionate, and if not, was the force reasonable?
Was the force reasonable and proportionate?
Was the force grossly disproportionate, and if not, was the force reasonable?
Correct. The answer best reflects the wording of s 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The woman must honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to protect another (the trigger) – a subjective question. The force used must be reasonable (the response) – an objective question but judged on the facts as the defendant believed them to be.
The woman acted to protect her boyfriend who, she believed, was being attacked by a stranger. When assessing her response, this case should be identified as a householder case (s 76(8A)), as the act took place in a dwelling house, the woman was not a trespasser and she believed the man was a trespasser. First it must be asked if the force was grossly disproportionate, s 76(5A). If it was, the woman cannot use the defence. If it was not, then it must be asked if the force was reasonable, R v Ray (Steven).
An eighteen-year-old girl is having a party when strangers that have not been invited arrive and go into the back garden where the party is taking place. The girl confronts one of the strangers and tells him to leave or she will call the police. He replies, ‘Not before I have had a kiss’ and puts his arm round the girl, attempting to kiss her. One of the girl’s friends picks up an empty beer bottle and smashes it on the stranger’s head.
Which of the following best describes the question(s) the jury will be asked to consider in relation to the friend’s response for the purposes of self-defence?
The jury will be asked to consider if the force was grossly disproportionate, and if not, was it reasonable?
The jury will be asked to consider if the force was reasonable which means proportionate
The jury will be asked to consider if the force was grossly disproportionate
The jury will be asked to consider if the force was reasonable, but it does not matter if it was disproportionate, as the exact measure of force cannot be weighed to a nicety
The jury will be asked to consider if the force was proportionate
The jury will be asked to consider if the force was reasonable which means proportionate
Correct. The answer reflects the wording of s 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The friend must honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to protect another (the trigger), a subjective question. The force used must be reasonable (the response), an objective question, but judged on the facts as the defendant believed them to be.
The friend acted to protect the girl who, she honestly believed, was being attacked by the stranger. When assessing her response, this case should be identified as a non-householder case because, even though the stranger is a trespasser, one of the elements in the test for a householder case in s 76(8A) is missing. The force is not used by the friend while in a building, s 76(8A)(b). Therefore, the test is that the force must be reasonable. It will not be reasonable if it is disproportionate, s 76(6). In a non-householder case, to be reasonable, the force used must therefore be proportionate.
The other options are incorrect.
In a non-householder case, it is not appropriate to consider whether the force used by the defendant is grossly disproportionate.
While s 76(7)(a) states that the force cannot be weighed to a nicety, and s 76(7)(b) states that evidence that the defendant only did what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by the defendant, it should also be noted that s 76(6) provides that force cannot be reasonable if it is disproportionate.
A new accountant was brought into the man’s office to be introduced. The accountant said ‘hello’ and the man smiled and grasped her hand to shake it. The new accountant pulled her hand away, as she had severe eczema which made contact with her hand painful.
Did the man commit the offence of battery?
This was a battery as the woman did not consent to having her hand shaken
This was not a battery as the man did not have the mens rea for the offence
This was a battery as a handshake can be described as force
This was not battery as a handshake cannot be described as force
This was not battery as the man was friendly rather than hostile or aggressive
This was not a battery as the man did not have the mens rea for the offence
Correct. The actus reus of battery took place when the man grasped her hand as the merest touch constitutes force (Collins v Wilcock), and there is no need for the force to be hostile, rude or aggressive (Faulkner v Talbot). Not all applications of force satisfy the requirements of a battery offence. The use of force must be unlawful, for example without consent, and must be accompanied with the relevant mens rea.
The mens rea is intentional or reckless use of unlawful force on another person. The man intended to and did apply force to the accountant, but not unlawful force. The man would not have realised that the accountant would not have consented to the everyday courtesy of shaking hands- he would have honestly believed the accountant consented. The defence might argue that this is covered by implied consent, the kind of everyday physical contact that is accepted to move around in society (Collins v Wilcock).
