Cases/ Statute For Chapt 6

Question 1

Beckford 1987

Answer 1

Re mistake

Case: policeman shot and killed victim in mistaken belief that the victim was armed and about to shoot d.

PoL:
A plea of mistake is really a denial. Mistake doesn’t need to be reasonable, but does need to be genuinely held.

Question 2

Howe 1987

Answer 2

Duress/limits on avail of defence

Case:d, acting under duress, took part in 2separate murders. Guilty.

PoL:
Cannot use defence of duress for attempted murder or murder.

Question 3

Bowen 1996

Linked to graham 1982

Answer 3

Relevant characteristics for duress/ standard of fortitude
(Linked to Graham 1982)

✅
Age, sex, pregancy, serious physical disability,
Recognises mental illness

❌
Pliability, timidity, unduly susceptible to threats, effects of drugs/alcohol/glue

Question 4

Gallagher 1963

Answer 4

Mens rea/ Dutch courage

Case: D planned to kill wife and bought spade to hit her over the head. Then drank whiskey before killing her. Guilty.
“No defence of taken to fortify courage”

PoL:
If MR already formed before intoxication then the defence doesn’t apply

Question 5

Malnik 1989

Answer 5

Self defence/ proportionality of response/ imminent threat

Case: d I armed himself with a rice flail and went to confront a man who he thought had stolen cars.

PoL:
Threat to d must have been imminent and specific

Question 6

Lipman 1970

Answer 6

Vol intox: no defence to basic intent crimes but could reduce specific to basic

Case: appellant took LSD. Believed he was being attacked by snakes and killed a girl by forcing bedsheets into her mouth. Convicted of manslaughter. Vol intox no excuse

PoL:
Voluntary intoxication no defence to crimes of basic intent such as manslaughter, (but might reduce specific down to basic)

Question 7

Graham 1982

Linked to Bowen 1996

Answer 7

Re duress/ objective test
(Linked to Bowen 1996)

Case: D pleaded duress after being involved in killing his wife (together with his homosexual lover). Argued that he acted out of fear.

PoL:
“ A sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendants characteristics would have responded as the defendant did”

Question 8

Mistake

Answer 8

Need not be reasonable but must be genuine (beckford 1987)

Must have prevented d from having MR (denial of MR)

An intoxicated mistake no defence (o Grady 1987)

D admits AR

Mistake as to facts, not mistake as to law

Question 9

Allen 1985

Answer 9

Vol/ Invol intoxication

Case: D claimed to underestimate the alcohol content of what he was drinking. Assaulted his neighbour. Guilty.

PoL:
D will be voluntarily intoxicated if he knew he was or might be consuming an intoxicant ( subjective recklessness). It’s vol intox even if he made a mistake about the strength

Question 10

Successful plea for duress

3 points and the tests/case law

Answer 10

1. threat of death or serious injury to d or dependants
2. no safe avenue of escape
3. Avoid a specific threat (malnik 1989)
4. No defence if associating with criminals (hasan 2003/5?)

Test is objective and subjective

Was Ds will over borne? (Willer 1986)subjective
If so, would a sober… (Pommell 1995)

Graham 1982 and Bowen 1996

Question 11

Martin 2000

Answer 11

Excessive self defence

Case: shot and killed attempted burglars as they were leaving the property. Guilty as a threat had passed.

PoL:
Excessive force is not reasonable

Question 12

Majewski 1977 (Ds crime as a result of his own voluntary reckless act- HoL)

Relates to vol intox and divides offences into specific and basic

Answer 12

Basic intent/ intoxication

Case: d attacked police officer whilst vol intoxicated. Claimed he couldn’t form MR.

PoL:
If d is charged with specific offence and is too drunk to form MR, he may be convicted of basic

If charged with basic, he cannot plead the defence as the very act of consuming an intoxicant is a reckless act

Question 13

Hardie 1985

Answer 13

Invol intox/ non dangerous drugs/ soporific effect

Case: D Took non-prescribed Valium to calm him down. It had the opposite effect and he started a fire.

PoL:
Consumption of non-dangerous drugs would amount to in voluntary intoxication unless the consumption itself was reckless . D didn’t and shouldn’t have known.This was also automatism in this case.

Question 14

S76 criminal justice and immigration act 2008 says that…/ defences for self defence

Answer 14

• use of some force must be necessary and a mistaken belief will be acceptable (Beckford 1987)
• The reasonableness of force judged on circs as d honestly believed them to be (subjective)
  (S76(3))
• no defence if mistake a result of voluntary intoxication (s76(5)) Case: O Grady 1987
• excessive force is not reasonable (s76(6))
  Case Martin 2000.

*tbreat must be imminent and specific (malnik 1989)

Question 15

Dudley and Stephens 1884

Answer 15

Necessity of circs/ murder

Case:

PoL:
Necessity can never be a defence to murder

Question 16

Defence of duress test.

It is a general defence and if accepted D will avoid liability

Answer 16

1. Was Ds Will overborne by threat of death/serious injury? (Willer1986) willer NG!- car on pavement
2. If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness and with the characteristics of d have responded as D did?(pommell 1995): he was guilty as threat had passed and Graham 1982 (reasonable firmness/sober/ sharing characteristics)

Age, sex and disability are relevant, but other characteristics not (Bowen 1996)

Threat of death/serious injury to d or dependants
No defence tomurder /attempted murder (Howe 1987)
Or if d at fault by mixing with criminals (hasan 2005)
No safe avenue of escape (pommel 1995?)
Threat imminent and specific (Malnik 1989)

Question 17

2 part test for self defence

Answer 17

1. Use of some force must be necessary and a mistaken belief will be acceptable (beckford 1987) but not a vol intox mistake (o Grady 1987)- s76(5)

Reasonableness of force judged on facts and circs as d believed them to be (cjia 2008)

2.actual force used must be proportionate- objective. Martin 2000. S76(3) and 76(6) cjia 2008

Question 18

Beckford 1987

What can I use it for?

Answer 18

Use for self defence and defence of mistake

Question 19

Kingston

Invol intox (exemption to usual rule)

What is the rule?

Answer 19

Drunken intent is still an intent unless d too drunk to form MR.

Kingston was guilty!!!