Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law > Criminal Defences > Flashcards

Criminal Defences Flashcards

(57 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Verdict if found to be insane

A 
‘Not guilty by reason of insanity’ 
Hospital order (always for murder) 
Supervision and treatment order 
Guardship order
Absolute discharge
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Insanity: M’Naughten

A

D must be suffering from

  • defect of reason (coming from a)
  • disease of the mind (so that D either)
  • does not know nature and quality of his act or D
  • does not know what he is doing is wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Insanity: Clarke

A

Does not matter if only deprived of powers of reasoning temporarily as long as present at crime
- Defect of reasoning is more than just confusion or absent mindedness
(THE SYMPTOMS)

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

Insanity: Hennessy

A

Had not taken insulin so came from within- internal cause (can use insanity)

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

Insanity: Quick

A

Had taken insulin so did not come from within- external cause
(Cannot use insanity)

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

What can you use for disease of the mind

A 
Malfunctioning of the mind 
Has to be INTERNAL that affect memory, reasoning, understanding 
- arteriosclerosis (thick arteries) 
- sleepwalking 
- hyperglycaemic
- diabetes 
- psychopathy 
- bipolar
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Insanity: D does not know nature and quality of act (Codere)

A

No idea what doing at all (unconscious/blacked out) or D was mistaken

  1. Unconscious/impaired consciousness
    - sleep walking, epileptic
  2. Conscious but does not understand/know what they are doing
    - schizophrenia
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Insanity: Johnson

A

D does not know act is LEGALLY wrong, doesn’t matter if they thought was morally right

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Automatism: verdict if argued successfully

A

Not guilty

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

Automatism: define

A

Crime committed by an involuntary act caused by an external factor

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

Automatism: Bratty

A

Involuntary act is done by the muscles without any control by the mind (fit, reflex, seizure)

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

Automatism: AG Ref 2 1992

A

Loss of control must be total (no control at all)

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

Automatism: external factor

A

Automatic state must be caused by

  • head injury
  • hypnotism
  • medication
  • traumatic event
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Automatism: Bailey

A

Did take their insulin so due to external factor: lack of food

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

Automatism: DPP v Majewski

Lipman

A

If basic intent and D knows risk of automated state- D has been reckless to commit basic intent offence
(So cannot use defence)
Lipman:
If specific intent depends if MR negated
- recklessness of autonomic state so definite basic intent

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

Self defence: verdict

A

If successful will be ‘not guilty’

Full and general defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Self defence: Beckford

A

D must think threat is imminent (very soon- more so than assault)

  • circum may justify pre-emptive strike
  • subjective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Self defence: Gladstone Williams

A

It does not matter if D makes an honest mistake, jury can still find force necessary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Self defence: Bird

A

D does not have duty to retreat but if they have opportunity and fail to do so, jury can consider this and may decide force was not necessary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Self Defence: S76(3) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

A

When jury deciding what was proportionate- it’s as D believed circumstances to be

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Self Defence: S76(7)(a) Criminal J & IA 2008

A

D not expected to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action
(Weigh up exact proportions in the heat of the moment)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Self Defence: S76(7)(b) Criminal J & IA 2008

A

If D did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, strong evidence that D took reasonable action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Self defence: Hussain

Study These Flashcards
A

Force in revenge/retaliation/excess is not allowed

24
Q

Self defence: O’Grady

Study These Flashcards
A

Drunken mistakes cannot be relied upon for self defence

25
Self defence elements
Force must be necessary (D must honestly believe) | Force must be proportionate (as D believed circum to be)
26
Duress: define
D committed offence because D or someone D was responsible for has been threatened with death or serious injury. D must also have been reasonable in response to threat
27
Duress: Velderrama Vega
Threat must be death/serious injury | Can be accumulative as long as also threat of serious injury
28
Duress: threat to who?
D/person D is responsible for - friends/family/situation Must be IDENTIFIABLE PERSON/GROUP
29
Duress: Graham test
Tests if they responded reasonably 1. Was D compelled to act as he did because he reasonably believed he had good cause to fear serious injury/death? (How believable) 2. Would sober person of reasonable firmness sharing D’s characteristics have responded in same way?
30
Duress: Bowen
Characteristics can take into account when doing Graham test: - age - pregnancy - serious physical disability - mental disorder - sex
31
Duress: how to apply Graham test
Is there connection between what D did and what D told to do? Is there a safe avenue of escape? Is threat on D’s mind while committing the crime?
32
Duress: Hasan
Duress not available when D voluntarily associated with others involved in criminal activity & forsaw or ought to have reasonably foreseen risk of being forced to commit crimes due to threats of violence
33
Duress: Sharp
Duress not available (self induced)
34
Duress: Shepherd
Duress available (not self induced)
35
Duress: of circumstances recognised in
Willer
36
Duress: Martin
Confirmed use of Graham test
37
Necessity: Dudley & Stephens
Rejected necessity as defence
38
Necessity: Re A
1. Consequences of not acting would have inflicted inevitable and irreparable evil 2. No more was done than was reasonably necessary 3. Evil inflicted not disproportionate to evil avoided (Only applicable to these case facts)
39
Intoxication: specific intent offences
- murder -S18 GBH/wounding - theft/robbery -attempts - 9(1)(a) & 9(1)(b) burglary (with theft not GBH)
40
Intoxication: basic intent offences
- assault - S20 GBH/wounding - battery - Invol manslaughter - S47 ABH - S9(1)(b) burglary (with GBH)
41
Intoxication: Voluntary/Specific
Lipman: - D not convicted of specific intent crime if intoxication prevents from forming MR (intox negate MR of intention but voluntary so still reckless of basic intent) Gallagher: - if D still had intention despite intoxication MR not negated so will be guilty of specific intent crime (drunken intent still intent)
42
Intoxication: Voluntary/basic
Majewski: - voluntary intoxication means you realise a risk of losing control therefore you have MR for basic intent crimes (recklessness)
43
Intoxication: involuntary/specific
Kingston: - still had intent when committing crime so MR not negated (drunken intent still intent) - if intoxication stops D intending it then MR negated
44
Intoxication: Allen
Intoxication must be completely involuntary to count as involuntary - if D willingly intoxicates himself on any level, being unaware of strength of intoxication does not matter
45
Intoxication: involuntary/basic
Hardie: - as involuntary they do not have auto recklessness - if D still realised risk despite intoxication he will still be guilty as MR not negated
46
Consent: define
D pleads defence by stating V consented to the act
47
Consent: Slingsby
Can consent to battery/assault
48
Consent: Pretty v UK
Cannot consent to murder
49
Consent: Leach
Cannot consent to S18 OAPA
50
Consent: Brown & others
Usually cannot consent to S47 & S20 GBH/wounding | - not in public interest that people cause others injury for no good reason
51
Consent: exceptions
``` Properly conducted sports Medical Lawful chastisement Dangerous exhibitions Tattooing/piercing Ritual circumcisions ```
52
Consent: aitken
D’s drunken or mistaken belief in V’s consent can be a defence to horseplay
53
Consent: Wilson
‘Personal adornment’ (brandishing with hot object) are an exception like tattooing
54
Consent: Olugbuja
Mere submission is not consent
55
Consent: Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech Health Authority
Have to be ‘Gillick Competent’ V must have sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding of the nature and consequences of what they are consenting to
56
Consent: Newland
If D lies to V/deceives about identity this will negate consent
57
Consent: implied
‘Ordinary jostlings of everyday life’ are not battery- implied consent

Law (42 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions