Defences Flashcards
What’s the difference between a crime of specific intent and a crime of basic intent?
Specific intent: Part of the mens rea is intention, i.e. intention to kill/cause GBH;
Basic intent: The mens rea can be fulfilled with something less than intent, i.e. recklessness.
Can voluntary intoxication be used as a defence in basic intent crimes? How is it used as a defence?
No, the event of getting drunk is itself reckless, so still satisfied the mens rea.
How can voluntary intoxication provide a defence in specific intent crimes?
If D was so intoxicated that they lacked the mens rea entirely, they’re deemed incapable of forming the specific intent so are not liable.
To what type of crime does the involuntary intoxication defence apply?
To both basic and specific intent crimes.
The element in basic intent crimes, where it requires recklessness, is absent if there wasn’t the reckless act of voluntarily becoming intoxicated.
How does involuntary intoxication apply as a defence?
If D still forms a mens rea, they are guilty.
They would have to be so intoxicated that they were unable to form the necessary mens rea.
What happens if D is mistaken about the need to defend themselves?
Provided their reaction to the feared circumstance was reasonable, they can still raise the defence of self-defence.
What happens if D is mistaken about the need to protect themselves because they were voluntarily intoxicated?
They cannot rely on an argument of self-defence, they were reckless when consuming the alcohol.
How does intoxication apply in criminal damage, when considering ‘lawful excuse’?
As all that is needed is an honest belief of consent/possible consent, intoxication does not impact this.
How is the defence of self-defence satisfied?
(i) D honestly believes that force was necessary; and
(ii) D used reasonable force in the circumstances they believe.
What level of force is ‘reasonable’ in self-defence?
A level of force that is not considered disproportionate in the circumstances.
Determined on an objective basis.
What characteristics and factors are taken into account when considering if the defendant acted reasonably?
Physical characteristics, e.g. a frail person would have a greater threat so may act more viciously.
Mental characteristics are not considered.
A factor that is considered, is the heat of the moment. Account is taken of the pressure D might have been under.
What is the level of force permitted in self-defence if the threat is inside the householder’s home?
Force that isn’t ‘grossly disproportionate’ is permitted.
