General Defences 👮‍♀️⛓

Question 1

Kind of defence of self defence/prevention of crime? 

Answer 1

Complete Defence

Question 2

What act is self defence/prevention of crime under? 

Answer 2

S.76 criminal justice+ immigration act 2008

Question 3

The first stage of self defence/prevention of crime? 

Answer 3

Whether the force used was unnecessary - s.76(3+4) - The rest is based on the subject of test - based on the defendants belief
(R vBeckford)
( R v Yarman)

However - s.76 [5] Force unbelief will not be genuine if defendant made judgement whilst being intoxicated ( R v O’Grady) 

Unless You have genuine evidence of an attack against you R v McGrath 

Question 4

What is the second stage of self defence/prevention of crime?

Answer 4

1. Whether the force was reasonable - proportional s. 76[6] based on objective test - would the Reasonable man deem it proportional?

R V Clegg - threat had passed

R v Martin 

S. 76 [7] - R v Palmer jury does not expect defendant to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of force

Question 5

What are the positives and negatives of stage to self defence / prevention of crime ( s.76 [7])

Answer 5

+ you Can make a pre-emptive strike no duty to retreat - ( R v Bird )

• Cannot rely on defence if you are the aggressor unless the force used against you was disproportionate (R v Keane )

+Homeowners s.76 [5A] - ( A Just means amendment or addition added in) - homeowners force will be unreasonable if grossly disproportionate

R v Hussain+ Hussain

Omari Roberts

Tracy Ferrie

Question 6

What is the intro for law on self defence evaluation? what does it help confine

Answer 6

Law on self defence has been codified under the criminal Justice + immigration act 2008- This confirms old common principle helps with clarity

Question 7

How do we evaluate stage one of self defence ?

Answer 7

Was it necessary to use force S.76(3+4) - use the subjective test on D’s belief - (R v Yarman) (R v Beckford)

+ Test as essential as only defendant can explain they fear in the situation everyone’s response is different

S.76 (5) - Defendants belief is not genuine if intoxicated ( R v McGrady)

however it can be if you have genuine evidence and there was attacked against you (R v McGrath)

+ Passes an important message that intoxication is not an excuse for a crime
However R v McGrath makes a common sense principle they can still have the defence while intoxicated

Question 8

How do we evaluate self defence stage two?

Answer 8

S.76(6) was force Use the reasonable was it proportional? - the objective test ( R v Clegg ) - threat has passed (R v Martin)

+ sets acceptable standers Of behaviour
And Avoids the potential that someone could lie

• however - Subject to test me help only D was in that moment
  So this really has the jury thinking like the defendant

Question 9

How do we evaluate the second point in stage two of self defence?

Answer 9

S. 76(7) Jury must not expect the defendant to weight to a nicety of the exact measure of force - ( R v Palmer)

+ no tolerance of violence
+ allows Flexibility
+ Allows laws to unify loss of control 55(6) (a+b) CJA (R v Daws) 2009
- Disproportionate- vague - need clarity

Question 10

How can we evaluate the making a preemptive strike with no duty to retreat (R v Bird)

Answer 10

• hard to Jude proportionally
  + allows D to protect self when necessary
• no duty to retreat and stage 1 contradictory
• allows D to be taking law into own hands - encourages violence

Question 11

How do we evaluate self defence home owners case S.76(5A) ?

Answer 11

Response to R v Martin Force will be reasonable unless it’s not grossly disproportionate
( R v Hussain Hussain )
( Tracy Ferrie )

+ Home Life important- where people feel Safest
- encourages Extrems violence - law is taken into own hands
- What is grossly disproportionate

Question 12

How do we evaluate what kind of defence self defence is ?

How was the outcome for murder resolved ?

Answer 12

General defence - All or nothing
- does not act as a form of mitigation

Murder - HOL - select committee campaigned partial defence - manslaughter - resolved by LOC fear trigger S.55(3) (R v Ward)

However arguably seen as disproportionate failed stage 3 LOC

Question 13

how can we go evaluate the reforms of Self Defence

Answer 13

Self defence - seen as a legitimate deference of an unlawful attack against you or others

Attack must be immediate- should always retreat
Force must be necessary proportionate - same as current law

• immediate- vaguely applied in law so need clarity on meaning

Question 14

How do we go through the Criticisms of intoxication? (Into)

Answer 14

2 types of intox - voluntary and involuntary

Question 15

What is voluntary intoxication a defence for ? (Criticisms)

Answer 15

Specific intent crimes - should it be a defence ? - alcohol causes problems within society - pressure NHS

• aggravating factor but also a defence
  Mitigating force ? no defence

Question 16

What are the criticisms of basic intent / specific crimes ?

Answer 16

DPP V Maljewlski - basic intent one with recklessness no defence

S.3 R v Heard - sexual offences act Basic intent crime with no MR - Made policy decisions unclear

Question 17

How do we evaluate R v Kingston?

Answer 17

R v Kingston - Lord Musthill -no clear distinction between specific and basic crime MENT to be soully separate law

However rule is unfair no drop down defence

Murder- Manslaughter

Theft - ?

Question 18

How does intoxication operate differently from different defences? 5 examples ?

Answer 18

Unclear and inconsistent

Consent - R v Aitkens - allows drunken mistake

Lawful excuse S.5 CDA - (Jaggard V Dickson )

Self Defence - no drunken mistake - goes against Jaggard V Dickinson

Dim Res- accepted as a Medical condition - (R v Dowds )

automatism - don’t accept drunken induction- R v Bailey

Question 19

How can we criticise the intent within self defence

Answer 19

Drunken intent - Still indent - VI - R v Parker

II - AG ref for NI v Gallagher

+ Protects the victim prevents D to use alcohol to justify actions

❌ issues with R v Kingston - not have acted on urges if had not been drugged

However harshness of R v Kingston helped protect the victim

Question 20

How can we criticise in voluntary intoxication within the criticisms of intoxication?

Answer 20

IV - No definition - case law cratered a list of what may be in voluntary intox

R v Hardie - Opposite effect so it was fair for def as there was no of knowledgeable risk

Med had dif Effects on people

However R v Allen - no defence did not know the stength ? logical

Question 21

How can we criticise the reform of intoxication?

Answer 21

Law commission 2009 - approve the Maljewlski Rule - would Defendant to take the risk or be aware of risk had be not been intoxicated - no defence

Question 22

What provides a list of examples or criticism under intoxication?

Answer 22

In voluntary intoxication

Question 23

What may you be allowed in Criticisms of intoxication? 

Answer 23

Duress - keep hardie Medication spiking 

Question 24

What is Duress?

Answer 24

Threat of force to steal 

Question 25

What is the first type of duress ?

Answer 25

Duress of threat under R v Graham which has three stages

Question 26

What kind of defence is Duress? 

Answer 26

Complete defence except for murder - (R v Howe ) or attempted ( R v Gotts )

Question 27

What is the first stage of Duress ? 

Answer 27

What’s the defendant compelled to act the way you did because he busy believe if you did not death or serious injury would result

Threat of death or serious injury ( R v Valderma Vega ) - Disclosing the information is not enough ( R v Dao)

Threat must be connected to the defence- ( R v Cole) 

Threat must be immediate- ( R v Hutson + Taylor )

(R v Abdul + Hussain) - Brett does not have to be media if it’s so overbearing- could have avoided threat ? 

Question 28

What is the second stage of Duress ? What do we have to consider ? 

Answer 28

2. Would a person who is Sober and had a reasonable firmness is given into the threat ?

Consider age of sex
do not consider IQ ( R v Bowen ) 

Question 29

What is the third Stage of duress ? 

Answer 29

Cannot be self induced (eg Cannot bring blackmail upon yourself) (R v Hason)

Do not get defence if there is any criminal involvement

(R v Fitzpatrick) - IRA

Question 30

What is the defence 2 of Duress ? What case does it come from ? 

Answer 30

Duress of Circumstance - (R v Willer )

Question 31

What is the first stage of Duress of circumstance?

Answer 31

Circumstance (Position) - if you did not act death or serious injury would result- R v Martin - Father was disqualified from driving but it did not wife - committed suicide

Question 32

What is the second stage of duress of circumstance? 

Answer 32

The same as Duress of threat - ( R v Pommell) ( R v Bowen ) - X IQ

Question 33

What is the third stage of duress ? 

Answer 33

It’s the same

if not self induced do not know clear intentions