Defences

Question 1

HMA v Doherty

Answer 1

Self-defence. 3 requirements:

• imminent threat to life/limb
• no possibility of retreat/escape
• proportionate response

Question 2

Thomson v HMA

Answer 2

Coercion requirements.

• imminent threat
• dominated mind of the accused
• objective test
• non-voluntary exposure to dangerous situation

Question 3

Moss v Howdle

Answer 3

Necessity requirements.

• imminent threat
• threat constrained to break the law
• dominated mind of the accused
• objective test
• reasonable chance of threat being prevented

Question 4

Lord Advocate’s Reference no 1 of 2000

Answer 4

Necessity requirements.

Question 5

Dawson v Dickson

Answer 5

Firefighter.

Question 6

Ross v HMA

Answer 6

Court recognised automatism as defence if qualifying conditions are met. Spiked drink. Automatism can be brought as a defence if total alienation of reason.

Question 7

Brennan v HMA

Answer 7

Voluntary intoxication cannot amount to a total alienation of reason allowing for an automatism defence. Public policy decision that voluntary intoxication is not a defence

Question 8

Finegan v Heywood

Answer 8

Parasomnia suffer. One reason why accused did not have defence open to him was that he could have forseen the parasomnia - medication and alcohol

Question 9

Ebsworth v HMA

Answer 9

Prescribed medication. Effects were foreseeable and did not have automatism defence available to him.

Question 10

Requirements of automatism defence.

Answer 10

• total alienation of reason
• caused by external factors
• non forseeability
• non self-induced