R v Forrest and Forrest
“The best evidence possible in the circumstances should be adduced by the prosecution in proof of [the victim’s] age.”
R v Cottle (Burden of proof)
degree of proof for insanity -sufficient jury is satisfied on balance of probabilities as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt
R v Clark
The decision as to an accused’s insanity is always for the jury and a verdict inconsistent with medical evidence is not necessarily unreasonable. But where unchallenged medical evidence is supported by the surrounding facts a jury’s verdict must be founded on that evidence which in this case shows that the accused did not and had been unable to know that his act was morally wrong.
R v Codere
The nature and quality of the act means the physical character of the act.
The phrase does not involve any consideration of the accused’s moral perception nor his knowledge of the moral quality of the act.
Thus a person who is so deluded that he cuts a woman’s throat believing that he is cutting a loaf of bread would not know the nature and quality of his act.
R v Cottle (automatism)
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of having done it - a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.
R v Joyce
compulsion must be made by a person who is present when the offence is committed.
R v Lavelle
It is permissible for undercover officers to merely provide the opportunity for someone who is ready and willing to offend, as long as the officers did not initiate the person’s interest or willingness to so offend.