Defences

• Insanity

  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 what he was doing was wrong
• Defect of Reason

  Powers of reasoning are impaired. R v Clarke - mere confusion of absent mindedness is not a defect of reason
• Disease of the mind

  R v Kemp - Physical illness which affected his mind, D was insane as defect due to an illness

  R v Burgess - Sleepwalking is sufficient for insanity
• Not knowing it was wrong

  R v Johnson - Suffered with schizophrenia and stabbed neighbour. Still knew his actions were wrong
• Automatism

  Bratty - An act done by the muscles without any control by the mins, such as a spasm, reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing such as an act whist suffering from concussion.
• Hill v Baxter

  Established automatism. Automatic state caused by external factors
• Self induced automatism

  If the defendant knows his actions are likely to bring about an automatic state they can't use the defence.
• Intoxication

  Was the intoxication involuntary or voluntary?

  Was it a basic intent or specific intent crime?
• Fall back offence

  Usually a fall back offence; for murder it's manslaughter. R v Lipman
• Sheehan v Moore


  Too drunk to form mens rea. Did the defendant form the intention or not? A drunken intent is still intent.
• Involuntary Intoxication 


  Defence to all crimes. Must be shown they don't have the mens rea.
• Voluntary Intoxication


  Can not be a defence to a basic intent(recklessness)but it can be for a specific intent crime. DPP v Majewski
• Self defence / prevention of crime 


  Full defence to all crimes. Includes defence of yourself, another or property
• Was it necessary to use force?


  • Subjective test - R v Gladstone Williams - The defendant is to be judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be.
  • Delusions or PTSD - R v Press+ Thompson - Judged them as they believed the facts to be
  • Pre emptive strike - Can defend before the attack R v Bird
  • Aggressor - Can still use the defence even if D is the inital aggressor if the responce from V was disproportionate to the threat. R v Rashford
• Was the force proportionate to the danger?


  Objective test, disproportionate force is not reasonable. Can consider: not being able to balance levels in heat of moment, D acted honestly as he thought was necessary, case by case- no set standard and defence is lost entirley if force is exessive.

  R v Clegg - Danger had past when final fatal shot was delivered, couldn't use defence as the danger had passed and force was disproportionate to the danger.
• Duress


  Full defence. The defendant has been forced to commit a crime agaisnt their will. R v Howe - Defence not avaliable for murder, manslaughter, treason and attempted murder.

  R v Hasan - Established 6 testes to be able to use duress
• 1 The threat 


  Must be of death or serious injury anything less is not sufficent. R v Valderrama Vega
• 2 The threat must be made against themselves, immediate family, someone close to them or someone they are responsible for
• 3 Did the Defendant act reasonably?


  • Did the defendant act as the did as they reasonably believed death or serious injury?
  • Would a sober person of reasonable firmness of D's characteristics have acted the same?
  • R v Bowen - Characteristics that are taken into account: age, gender, pregnacy, mental disorder or physical diability.
  • Low IQ is not sufficent
• 4 The threat must link directly to the specific crime committed. R v Cole
• 5 Evasive action 


  Duress can only be used if the defendant had no 'safe avenue of escape' R v Gill

  R v Hudson and Taylor - Police protection isn't fool proof
• 6 Can't use defence if self-induced duress. R v Hasan - Knownly asscoiated with violent criminals and can't use the defence
• Duress of Circumstances


  Circumstances dictate crime rather than a person. R v Abdul Hussain