defences Flashcards
what is the defintion of a criminal attempt
intent to commit an offence, a person does an act which is more than merely prepatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of commmiting the offence
criminal attempts act 1981 s.1(1)
What is the actus reus of a criminal attempt
-must be an act not an omission
-more than merely prepatory, show a real step towards commiting the offense ( AG Ref No.1 of 1992)
-must have embarked on the crime proper ( R v Gullifer)
what is the mens rea for a criminal attempt
intent to commit that full offence, recklkesness does not count for attempt
R v Mohan
whats the mens rea for attempted murder
must have the intention to kill the victim
R v Whybrow
what is the defintion of insanity and the outcome if succesful
comes from an internal cause which leads to a loss of control
the special verdict- not guilty by a reason of insanity
to establish insanity you must prove 3 things
1.defect of the reason
2.disease of the mind
3.did not know the nature and quality of the act or if he did not know they were in the wrong
Mcnaughten rules
insanity
what is stated in r v clarke
having an inablity to use powers of reasoning not choosing not to use them
can a disease of the mind be temporary
yes
r v kemp
what type of disease of the mind is in R v Sullivan
Epilepsy
what type of diabetes can be used for insanity
hyperglycemia, deficency in insulin levels
R v Hennesy
what does R v Coley state about intoxication
you cant use intoxication and insanity as a defence
how can a defendant demonstrate they did not know the quality and nature of the act
-they did not know what they were doing
-they did not appreciate the consequences of what they were doing
they did not appreciate the circumstanes in which they were acting
what is the definition of automatism
a complete loss of voulantry control that is not cause by what the person could reasonablly forsee and is not a self induced incapacity or one that was a result of a disease of the mind
must come from a external cause
principle from hill v baxter
anything that cause a loss of consicious control in the case being stung by bees
automatism
what does the case R v T
actions were uncontrolable due to condition resulting from an external traumatic event
what must the action be
complelty invoulantry
1. act done by the muscles with no control of the mind
2. act done by a person who is not consscious
Bratty v AG
What does DPP v Majewski say avout automatisim
it cannot be self induced therefore intocixation voulantry cannot form the base of a defence
what must be shown for intoixcation to succeed as a defence
has to be shown that the defendant was so intoxicated by the substance, that the were incapeable of forming the mens rea of the offence
what type of crimes will intoxication succed for
only specific intent crimes and not basic as recklessness can be parrt of the mens rea and intoxication is recklesness
what is stated about voulantry intoxication and specific intent crimes
the defendant must of formed the intention, regardeless of being drunk
a drunken intent is still an intent
r v sheehan and moore
what is the law on voulantry intoxication and a basic intent crime
voulantry intoxication is not a defence since intoxication is seen as a reckless act and recklessness is the mens rea for a basic intent crime
DPP v Majweski
what is the law on invoulantry intoxication
allowed to argue thay they did not form the mens rea basic or specific
if the prosecution can prove they did form the mens rea, they will be liable
intoxicated mistake is..
mistaken reasonabkle force requried for self defence will not be a defence
R v Ogrady
