Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A level Law: Criminal Law > 2.8 Defences > Flashcards

2.8 Defences Flashcards

1
Q

What are 3 capacity defences

A

Insanity
Automatism
Intoxication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Capacity defence: Insanity

What are the rules of insanity

A

M’Naghten rules:

  1. Labouring under defect of reason
  2. Arising from a disease of the mind
  3. Did not know the nature and quality fo the act
  4. Or if he did know it, then he did not know what he was doing was wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Capacity defence: Insanity

Case highliting the M’Nghten rules

A

R v Hennessy (1989)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Capacity defence: Insanity

Facts of R v Hennessy (1989)

A

D had not taken his insulin for 3 days, he was a diabetic, he was in an emotional state as his wife had left him and he stole a car.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Capacity defence: Insanity

Held in R v Hennessy (1989)

A

Judge raised defence of insanity on his behalf as he had ‘disease of mind’ stemming from an internal source (diabetes).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Capacity defence: Insanity

Under a murder charge what would happen if defence of insanity is successfully pleaded

A

Sentence is indefinate hospitalisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Capacity defence: Insanity

Under any other charge what 3 things could happen if defence of insanity is successfully pleaded

A

Absolute discharge
Hospital order
Supervision order

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Capacity defence: Insanity

What are some reform proposals the Law Commission published for the insanity defence

A
  • To term a person with a disability like diabetes and epilepsy as ‘insane’ seems arbritrary and outdated
  • There is a mismatch between modern psychiatry and the legal definition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Capacity defence: Automatism

Define automatism

A

an act done by the person without control of the mind - like a muscle spasm - or an act done by a person who is not conscious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Capacity defence: Automatism

What are the requirements for automatism

A

There must be an external factor - like slipping on ice

There must be a total loss of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Capacity defence: Automatism

outline the rules of self-induced automatism

A

defence will not be successful if D knows action will bring about automatic state - intoxication -

  • still a defence for specific intent crimes

exception if D does not realise actions will cause self-induced automatism and they aren’t reckless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Capacity defence: Automatism

Case outliniing rules of automatism

A

R v T (1990)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Capacity defence: Automatism

Facts of R v T (1990)

A

D took part in a robbery three days after being raped. She pleaded defence of automatism as she suffered PTSD caused by external factor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Capacity defence: Automatism

Held in R v T (1990)

A

Rape constituted an external factor giving rise to defence of automatism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Capacity defence: Intoxication

What are the 2 types of intoxication

A

Voluntary and non voluntary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Capacity defence: Voluntary intoxication

Define this defence

A

D chooses to take substance known to cause intoxication.

17
Q

Capacity defence: Voluntary intoxication

Specific intent crimes and intoxication

A

If D is so intoxicated that they are incapable of forming the mens rea they have a complete defence

18
Q

Capacity defence: Voluntary intoxication

Basic intent crimes and intoxication

A

Where recklessness is suficient to prove mens rea, this defence will not work as becoming intoxicated is considered a reckless behaviour

19
Q

Capacity defence: Involuntary intoxication

Describe involuntary intoxication

A

D was unaware they were taking intoxicating substance, (thinsg like perscribes drigs may have unexpected effects)

While involuntary intoxicated…

  • D formed mens rea, they may be guilty
  • D did not form mens rea, not guilty
20
Q

What are the 3 necessity defences

A

Self defence
Duress by threat
Duress by circumstances

21
Q

Necessity defences: Self defence

Describe self defence

A

It is a complete defence for all crimes

Definition: using reasonable force to defend oneself

22
Q

Necessity defences: Self defence

What are the rules to self defence

A
  1. Must be necessary to use some force
  2. Degree of force must be reasonable
23
Q

Necessity defences: Self defence

Describe ‘must be necessary to use some force’

A

subjective test based on D’s genuine belief

Pre-emtive strike is allowed as D can prepare for an attack, no duty to retreat

24
Q

Necessity defences: Self defence

Describe ‘degree of force must be reasonable’

A

situation must be assessed by what the D honestly and instrinctly thought was reasonable - objective test

25
Q

Necessity defences: Duress by threats

definition

A

D is forced to commit a crime due to direct threat.

person’s will has been overcome by threat, if they weren’t threatened they would have never committed the crime

26
Q

Necessity defences: Duress by threats

What are the rules to duress by threats

A

must be threat of death or serious injury

threat can include the D, a close family member or someone who the D is responsible for

27
Q

Necessity defences: Duress by threats

What is the 2 part Graham test that must be satisfied to claim this defence

A
  1. Was the D compelled to act because they believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury
  2. Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics, have acted the same
28
Q

Necessity defences: Duress by threats

What circumstance would this defence not work

A

If there is a safe venue for escape and the D does not persue it

If D associates himself with people who are known to make threats (like criminal gangs)

29
Q

Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances

Definition

A

D was forced to react due to the circumstances they found themselves in

30
Q

Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances

2 part Martin test

A
  1. from an objective pov, accused acted reasonably to avoid a threat of death or serious harm
  2. same 2 part graham test applies
31
Q

Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances

Case outlining this defence

A

DPP v Davis (1994)

32
Q

Necessity defences: Duress of circumstances

Facts of DPP v Davies (1994)

A

D drove while intoxicated to avoid being attacked

33
Q

Necessity defences: Duressof circumstances

Held in DPP v Davies (1994)

A

Convictions were quashed. Duress of circumstances was available

A level Law: Criminal Law (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions