Defences

Question 1

What is the M’Naghten rule?

Answer 1

Orig rules for insanity defence after trying to kill MP

The M’Naghten rule establishes criteria for determining whether a defendant can be excused from criminal liability due to insanity.

Question 2

What was the significance of Clarke’s case?

Answer 2

Defect of reason caused D to forget to pay at supermarket

This case highlights how a defect of reason can impact a person’s ability to understand their actions.

Question 3

What did the Kemp case establish regarding mental health?

Answer 3

Heart attack caused blackout which was a disease of the mind

Kemp’s case illustrates that physical conditions can be linked to mental health issues in legal contexts.

Question 4

In Sullivan’s case, what was classified as a disease of the mind?

Answer 4

Epilepsy was a disease of the mind, causing fits

This case emphasizes that certain medical conditions can affect a person’s mental state.

Question 5

What was determined in Hennessy’s case regarding diabetes?

Answer 5

Not taking insulin leads to high blood sugar if diabetic, this was disease of the mind

This case illustrates the legal implications of failing to manage a chronic medical condition.

Question 6

What does Quick’s case indicate about automatism?

Answer 6

Not eating enough after taking too much insulin is automatism caused by external medicine

Quick’s case shows that external factors can lead to automatism in legal defenses.

Question 7

What was the ruling in Burgess’s case regarding sleepwalking?

Answer 7

Sleepwalking caused by disorder was a disease of the mind when attacking V

This case sets a precedent for sleep disorders being recognized as mental health issues in legal contexts.

Question 8

What was the conclusion in Coley’s case regarding intoxication?

Answer 8

Cannabis was an external factor and D was voluntarily intoxicated, this is reckless

Coley’s case highlights the legal consequences of voluntary intoxication.

Question 9

What does Oye’s case illustrate about understanding actions?

Answer 9

NGRI as D didn’t understand what he was doing in cafe affray

This case emphasizes the importance of awareness in legal defenses for insanity.

Question 10

In Windle’s case, why was there no insanity defense?

Answer 10

No insanity defence as D’s words showed he knew he’d broken the law

Windle’s case establishes that knowledge of wrongdoing can negate an insanity defense.

Question 11

What example did Hill v Baxter provide regarding automatism?

Answer 11

Gave obiter example of being attacked by bees as automatism

This case illustrates a hypothetical scenario of how external factors can lead to automatism.

Question 12

What did R v T establish about PTSD?

Answer 12

PTSD caused by rape is automatism as caused by an external experience/attack

R v T sets a precedent for recognizing PTSD as a valid cause of automatism in legal defenses.

Question 13

What was determined in A-G Reference No 2 of 1992 regarding driving?

Answer 13

Driving lorry without awareness isn’t a total loss of control for automatism

This case clarifies the parameters for what constitutes a total loss of control in automatism defenses.

Question 14

What does Bailey’s case indicate about self-induced automatism?

Answer 14

Not eating enough after insulin is self-induced automatism, leading to recklessness

Bailey’s case emphasizes the concept of self-induced automatism in legal contexts.

Question 15

What was the finding in Hardie’s case regarding valium?

Answer 15

Self-induced valium side effects were not recklessness as D didn’t realise risk

Hardie’s case suggests that not all self-induced effects are considered reckless if the individual is unaware of the risks.

Question 16

DPP v Beard

Answer 16

D too drunk to form intent to kill, defence to murder

Question 17

A-G NI v Gallagher

Answer 17

D had mens rea for murder before drinking for Dutch courage, no defence

Question 18

Majewski

Answer 18

Excessive drinking & drugs was reckless so no defence to pub fight

Question 19

Kingston

Answer 19

D wanted to commit abuse even though he’d been spiked, no defence

Question 20

Lipman

Answer 20

Drugs meant D thought he was attacking snakes, so no specific intent to murder a human

Question 21

Hatton

Answer 21

D couldn’t use self defence as he was drunk and overestimated threat

Question 22

Jaggard v Dickinson

Answer 22

Could use mistake defence when smashed window thinking it was friend’s house, even due to drink

Question 23

Hussain

Answer 23

No self-defence as the burglars were running away from house

Question 24

Collins v SOSJ

Answer 24

6 mins headlock would likely be reasonable force as not ‘grossly disproportionate’

Question 25

Gladstone Williams

Answer 25

D genuinely thought youth was being attacked, so could use self-defence

Question 26

Howe

Answer 26

Can't use duress for murder, should've refused to kill V

Question 27

Gotts

Answer 27

Can't use duress for attempted murder when trying to kill mum at dad's request

Question 28

Valderrama-Vega

Answer 28

Threat to expose homosexuality made threats even more serious

Question 29

Graham

Answer 29

Two stage test for duress: was D compelled to act due to threat & would reasonable person do the same?

Question 30

Gill

Answer 30

No duress as D could've alerted help rather than steal lorry

Question 31

Hudson and Taylor

Answer 31

Duress as girls reasonably didn't go to police after threats

Question 32

Cole

Answer 32

No duress for robberies as D just told to pay debt back

Question 33

Shepherd

Answer 33

Duress when threatened by non-violent gangmates

Question 34

Sharp

Answer 34

No duress since self-induced, gangmates were predictably violent already

Question 35

Willer

Answer 35

Duress of circumstances caused D to drive recklessly on pavement

Question 36

Conway

Answer 36

Duress of circumstances caused D to drive away from (mistaken) thugs

Question 37

Martin

Answer 37

Duress of circumstances caused D to drive when banned to avoid wife's suicide threats

Question 38

Pommell

Answer 38

Duress of circumstances caused by taking gun from another man

Question 39

Dudley and Stephens

Answer 39

Necessity not a defence for cannibalism

Question 40

Re A

Answer 40

Necessity a defence to murder for separation of twins

Question 41

Donovan

Answer 41

Consent can be used as a defence to minor harm for sexual pleasure

Question 42

Tabassum

Answer 42

No real consent as he lied about the reasons for breast exams

Question 43

Olugboja

Answer 43

No real consent when V submitted to rape when scared

Question 44

Dica

Answer 44

Consenting to sex without protection is not the same as consenting to HIV

Question 45

Barnes

Answer 45

Only convict for sports injuries if far beyond rules of sport (we consent generally to risks)

Question 46

A-G Reference No 6 of 1990

Answer 46

Can't consent to fist fighting in street, not allowed for public policy. Can consent if exceptions apply

Question 47

Brown

Answer 47

Couldn't consent to serious harm as sexual pleasure has no utility for society

Question 48

Wilson

Answer 48

Could consent to branding as similar to tattooing, which has social utility

Question 49

Aitken

Answer 49

Setting fire to RAF uniform was just consensual horseplay

Question 50

Sheehan and Moore

Answer 50

Drunk intent is still intent

Question 51

Harris

Answer 51

Can be a defence if suffering from mental disorder due to previous intoxication

Question 52

O'Grady

Answer 52

Drunken mistake cannot justify unreasonable force in self-defence

Question 53

Beckford

Answer 53

Pre-emptive strike was allowed when officer thought suspect was shooting at him

Question 54

Bird

Answer 54

No duty to retreat, can be willing to fight to defend

Question 55

Martin

Answer 55

Shooting in the dark was not necessary as threat no longer there

Question 56

Hasan

Answer 56

Gave 6 part test for duress, D worked for violent drug dealer

Question 57

Hammond

Answer 57

Duress threat must be imminent or immediate

Question 58

Bowen

Answer 58

Low IQ irrelevant characteristic for Graham test

Question 59

Re F

Answer 59

Necessity allowed for sterilisation of woman who lacked capacity to consent