Important cases : Defences

Question 1

Self Defence : R V Palmer

Answer 1

Gives the self defence structure

Question 2

Self Defence : R v Williams (Gladstone)

Answer 2

Defendant is judged against facts as he believed them at the time

Question 3

Self Defence : R v O’Grady

Answer 3

If self defence prompted by drunken mistake, it can’t be relied upon

Question 4

Self Defence : R v McGrath

Answer 4

Intoxication does not automatically mean self defence is caused by drunken mistake

Question 5

Self Defence : R v Keane

Answer 5

D is allowed self-defence even when D started fight if V’s response is disproportionate

Question 6

Self Defence :Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 1983)

Answer 6

Can’t prepare self defence but self defence not limited to spontaneous acts of D

Question 7

Self Defence : R v Owino

Answer 7

Test for excessive force is objective

Question 8

Self Defence : R v Clegg

Answer 8

If threat passed, self defence not permitted

Question 9

Self Defence : R v Martin

Answer 9

Self defence not permitted if V is retreating

Question 10

Duress: R v Graham

Answer 10

• Test for duress
• If D is drunk, this will not be taken into account
• Was the defendant compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had a good reason to fear death or serious injury?
• Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the same characteristics as the defendant, have acted in the same way?

Question 11

Duress: R v Quayle

Answer 11

Duress if D in imminent danger of death or serious injury

Question 12

Duress: R v Valderrama-Vega

Answer 12

Need a threat of death or serious injury. Other threats are taken
into account alongside those.

Question 13

Duress: R v Cole

Answer 13

Duress only applies if the D committed a crime as the result of
duress

Question 14

Duress: R v Bowen

Answer 14

Take into account sex, age, pregnancy, physical health and
disability, mental health concerns and psychiatric issues

Question 15

Duress: R v Hasan (2005) / R v Batchelor (2013)

Answer 15

If you have time to escape, you can’t claim duress.

Question 16

Duress: R v Hasan

Answer 16

If you associate with criminals who are likely to use violence,
can’t claim duress. Threat to anyone sufficiently close to use is
duress.

Question 17

Duress: R v Shayler

Answer 17

Can use duress if you can identify victims and those victims are
sufficiently close to you

Question 18

Duress: R v Howe

Answer 18

Threat must be convincing

Question 19

Duress : R v Baker

Answer 19

psychological injury doesn’t count

Question 20

Insanity :R v Quick

Answer 20

If diabetic outcome due to mis prescribed insulin, not insanity as is outside cause

Question 21

Insanity : M’Naghten (1843)

Answer 21

that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and … that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong

Question 22

Insanity :R v Clarke

Answer 22

Absent-mindedness or confusion not insanity

Question 23

Insanity : R v Hennessey

Answer 23

Diabetes can be insanity

Question 24

Insanity :Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland

Answer 24

Insanity has to come from disease of mind

Question 25

Insanity : R v Kemp

Answer 25

Physical conditions that impair condition of mind are insanity

Question 26

Insanity : AG for NI v Gallagher

Answer 26

Self induced intoxication does not become insanity

Question 27

Insanity : R v Johnson

Answer 27

Not insanity if person is aware act is illegal

Question 28

Intoxication: R v Sheehan and Moore

Answer 28

If intoxicated, the defendant may lack the required mens rea

Question 29

Intoxication: R v Lipman

Answer 29

Fallback Offences : If a specific intent crime fails, D can fall back on a basic intent crime e.g. manslaughter

Question 30

Intoxication: Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher

Answer 30

A defendant who forms intent before becoming intoxicated can still be guilty. Intoxication doesn't negate mens rea

Question 31

Intoxication: DPP v Majewski

Answer 31

Voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence for basic intent crimes (e.g., assault), as intoxication is considered reckless.

Question 32

Intoxication: R v Allen

Answer 32

If unaware of the strength of the intoxicant, D could use this as a defence.

Question 33

Intoxication: R v Kingston

Answer 33

If the prosecution can prove that he or she did form the men’s rea, he or she will be guilty of the offence whether specific of basic intent even if they would not have committed it has she or he been involuntarily intoxicated

Question 34

Intoxication: Hardie

Answer 34

If the defendant did not have necessary intent or had been reckless in getting intoxicated he will not be

Question 35

Intoxication: R v O’Grady

Answer 35

If intoxicated mistake is about another aspect e.g. amount of force needed in self-defence, then D has NO defence

Question 36

Intoxication: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Answer 36

a mistaken belief through D’s voluntary intoxication cannot give a defence of self-defence

Question 37

Automatism: Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland

Answer 37

Definition: Acts carried out while a person lacks the capacity to make independent rational decisions or lacks the animus to prevent themselves from carrying out the act

Question 38

Automatism (insanity): M’Naghten Rules

Answer 38

Insane automatism: When involuntary actions result from an internal cause classified as a “disease of the mind”

Question 39

Automatism: Hill v Baxter

Answer 39

automatism could be a defence if caused by an external factor.

Question 40

Automatism: Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992)

Answer 40

partial loss of control does not amount to automatism. A total loss of voluntary control is required.

Question 41

Automatism: R v T

Answer 41

While stress and trauma can be external factors, the court rejected automatism as there was insufficient evidence of total loss of control.

Question 42

Automatism: R v Bailey

Answer 42

The defence of automatism may be available for specific intent offences unless the defendant was reckless in inducing the state.

Question 43

Automatism: R v Hardie

Answer 43

Automatism was allowed as a defence because Valium’s normal effect is too calm, and the defendant could not foresee the unusual reaction.