Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

LAW - CRIMINAL > Defences > Flashcards

Defences Flashcards

1
Q

What are the 2 types of defences?

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

Key Elements of Insanity

Capacity Defence

A
  • Based on M’Naghten rules 1843
  • Established 3 key rules:
    1) Defect of reason
    2) As a result of a disease of the mind
    3) Causes D to not know nature and quality of the act
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Key Elements of Defect of Reason

Insanity

A
  • Doesn’t include absentmindedness or being confused
  • Can’t just be failing to use their power of reasoning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Disease of the Mind

Insanity

A
  • Legal term, not medical
  • Must be supported by medical evidence
  • Must originate from an internal source
  • Includes:
    > brain tumores
    > epilepsy
    > depression
    > schizophrenia
    > paranoia
    > diabetes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Not Knwoing the Nature and Quaility of the Act

Insanity

A
  • If D knew actions were wrong then they’re liable, even if they have medical condition
  • Means physical nature, not moral element
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Consequences of an Insanity Verdict

Insanity

A
  • Hospital order
  • Supervision order
  • Absolute discharge
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R v Burgees 1991

Insanity

A

D attacked V while sleepwalking

Sleepwalking is an internal factor, therefore insanity

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

R v Quick 1973

Insanity

A

D was diabetic. Didn’t eat enough food and attacked a patient

Can’t use insanity as was an external factor - insufficient food

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

Define Automatism

Capacity Defence

A
  • An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind
  • E.g. a spasm or convulsion, or someone who is not conscious of what they’re doing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Elements of Automatism

Automatism

A
  • Must be an external factor:
    > Being struck on the head
    > Slipping on ice
    > Hiccups
    > Coughing fit
  • Must be a total loss of control:
    > Impaired, reduced or parital control is invalid
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is Self-Induced Automatism

Automatism

A
  • D knows their conduct will bring out an automatic state, e.g. intoxication
  • Exception where D doesn’t know their voluntary actions would cause automatism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R v T 1990

Automatism

A

D had exceptional stress. Exceptional stress only sufficent for partial control loss

Can’t use automatism as only sufficent for partial control loss

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

Bailey 1983

Self-Induced Automatism

A

D was diabetic, failed to eat after taking insulin. Became agressive and hit V with iron bar

D liable as automatism was self-induced

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

Intoxication

Capacity Defence

A
  • Includes drugs, alcohol and other substances
  • Can affect mens rea & therefore liability
  • Can be voluntary or involuntary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Voluntary Intoxication

Intoxication

A
  • D chooses to take substance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Specific Intent Crimes For Intoxication

Intoxication

A
  • If D is so intoxicated that they cant form mens rea, then it is complete defence
  • If D still has intent of mens rea, they can be guilty of the offence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Basic Intent Crimes For Intoxication

Intoxication

A
  • If recklessness is sufficent for mens rea, then D will be liable if voluntarily intoxicated
  • Becoming intoxicated is sufficent for recklessness of mens rea, and shows intent for crimes like ABH and common assault
18
Q

Involuntary Intoxication

Intoxication

A
  • Where D was unaware of taking intoxicating substances
  • Can be spiking drinks
  • If involuntarily intoxicated and didn’t form mens rea, not quilty
  • If D did form mens rea when involuntarily intoxicated, then can be liable
19
Q

DPP v Majewski 1977

Intoxication

A

D drank lots and took drugs. Got into fight.

D liable of ABH as was reckless at to getting intoxicated

20
Q

R v Kingston 1994

Intoxication

A

A known pedo drank a drugged coffee (was involuntarily intoxicated). Went on to abuse young boy.

Was liable as was still aware of what he was doing

21
Q

What are the 3 Necessity Defences?

A
  • Self-defence/The prevention fo crime
  • Duress by threats
  • Duress of circumstances
22
Q

Define Self-Defence

Necessity Defence

A
  • Using reasonable force in order to defend oneself
23
Q

What 2 Things Are Looked at in Self-Defence?

Self-Defence

A
  • Was the use of force necessary?
  • Was the forse reaosnable in the circumstances?
24
Q

Was the Force Necessary?

Self-Defence

A
  • Subjective Test
  • Based on D’s genuine belief
25
Q

Was the Force Reasonable in the Circumstance?

Self-Defence

A
  • If D honestly and instinctively thought level of force was necessary then its likely to be deemed reasonable
  • Takes into account slight over-reaction in pressure
  • If force used once danger is gone, defence not avaliable
26
Q

Genuine Mistakes in Self-Defence

Self-Defence

A
  • If D made genuine mistake then jury decide if force was necessary in circumstances
  • Jury decide if D honestly believed it was needed
  • Mistake must be genuine, judged on facts of case
26
Q

Genuine Mistakes in Self-Defence

Self-Defence

A
  • If D made genuine mistake then jury decide if force was necessary in circumstances
  • Jury decide if D honestly believed it was needed
  • Mistake must be genuine, judged on facts of case
27
Q

R v Martin (Anthony) 2002

Self-Defence

A

D shot burglar and killed him.

Held to be excessive force, not self-defence as V was making his escape

28
Q

R v Williams 1987

Self-Defence

A

D gradded V, who he thought was attacking a youth

Was a genuine mistake and in prevention of crime so conviction quashed

29
Q

What is Duress?

A
  • Someone is forced to commit crime due to being threatened of death or serious injury
30
Q

Duress by Threats

Necessity Defence

A
  • Threat has to be:
    > A threat of serious injury or death
    > Threat must be to D or someone with close
    relationship to D
31
Q

Graham Test 1982

Duress by Threats

A
  • Was D compelled to act as they did because they reasonably feared death or serious injury? * (SUBJECTIVE)*
  • Would a sober person of reasonable firmness and same characteristics have acted in same way? (OBJECTIVE)
32
Q

No Safe Avenue of Escape

Duress by Threats

A
  • If there is a safe way to escape then must be persued
  • Can only claim if there is no safe way of escaping
33
Q

Self-Induced Duress

Duress by Threats

A
  • If D aware they may be put under duress then can’t use defence
  • E.g. If D joined gand and commits offences, but is then forced into committing other crimes
34
Q

Gill 1963

Duress by Threats

A

D claimed wife was threatened if he didn’t steal a lorry.

Couldn’t claim as he had opportunity to ‘raise the alarm’

35
Q

R v Gotts 1992

Duress by Threats

A

D was 16. D was threatened by his dad to stab his mum

Was no defence to attempted murder

36
Q

Duress to Circumstance

A
  • Someone commits a crime because of the circumstances they found themself in
37
Q

Martin Test

Duress to Circumstance

A

1) From an objective POV , D acted reasonably and proportionatley to avoid threat of death or serious injury
2) 2 part Graham Test applies (under duress of threats)

38
Q

R v Conway 1988

Duress to Circumstance

A

D drove fast after thinking he was shot at.

Duress avaliable if from an objection pov D was acting to avoid threat

39
Q

DPP v Davis 1994

Duress to Circumstance

A

D drove while intoxicated to avoid being attacked

Convictoins quashed and duress by circumstances were avaliable

LAW - CRIMINAL (6 decks)

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