Defences-law

• insanity’s rule is based on what

  M’naghten rules 1843
• in insanity who is the burden of proof on?

  The defence
• 1st rule of insanity

  Defect of reason
• cases of defect of reason

  Clarke and Sullivan
• 2nd test of insanity

  Disease of mind
• Case from disease of mind

  M’naghten
• 3rd test of insanity

  no understanding of nature
• Cases in nature

  oye and windle
• voluntary intoxication takes place when what happens?

  D takes a intoxicating substance through choice
• (VOLUNTARY) If D is too intoxicated to form the MR for a specific intent crime what will happen?

  They will be found guilty of a lesser ‘fallback’ crime
• What case is used for fallback crime

  Lipman
• What states intoxication must be extreme for a fallback crime to be used?

  Sheeman and moore
• (VOLUNTARY) if the defendant has formed the MR for a specific intent what will happen?

  They will be found fully guilty of the crime
• Voluntary intoxication is not a defence for what?

  Basic intent crimes
• What established that Voluntary intoxication is not a defence for basic intent crimes?

  DPP v Majewski
• If the defendant has the necessary mensrea for the offence, despite their intoxication What will happen? 


  They will be found guilty of the full crime
• What case set out ‘Dutch courage’ cannot be a defence?

  A-G for Northern Ireland v Gallagher.
• Involuntary intoxication occurs when what happens?

  when D does not choose to take an intoxicating substance OR does not know the intoxicating effect
• What was the case where the Defendant did Not know the medicine they took was intoxicating?

  Hardie
• involuntary intoxication is a defence for what?

  Specific and basic intent crimes, if the defendant cannot form the MR
• What case established you can still be found guilty if you have the MR even if you are involuntarily intoxicated

  Kingston
• The defence of duress by threats may is a full defence where the defendant has committed an offence due to being threatened with death or serious injury. 
• (Duress by threat) can be a defence to all crimes except murder and attempted murder, set out in Howe and in Gotts.
• In duress by threat the specific type of crime must be nominated by the one making the threat, as in Cole. 
• In duress by threat, The threat has to be to the defendant, his immediate family, or a third party to whom D feels responsible for as in Martin.   
• In duress by threat, The threat has to be of death or serious injury, including mental or physical health, but the cumulative effect of threats can be considered along with a threat of injury, as in Valderrama-Vega. A threat to expose sexuality is not enough, but a threat to rape is enough.
• In duress by threat The jury must consider a 2-stage test, set out in Graham:   

   

  • Firstly, was D compelled to act because they reasonably believed they had good cause to fear death or serious injury? (a subjective test - Cairns).   

   

  • Secondly, if so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of D, have responded in the same way? (an objective test - Bowen).  
• in duress by threat, For the objective test, characteristics of D that can be considered are mental illness, disability, age, gender and pregnancy, but not low IQ as in Bowen.  
• In duress by threat, The threat must be imminent, although not immediate, set out in Abdul-Hussain and Shayler.
• In duress by threat, There must not be a safe avenue of escape, such as going to the police, set out in Gill.
• in duress by threat the threat must not be self induced such as D being in a gang as In hasan
• The defence of duress by circumstances is a full defence where the defendant is forced to act by surrounding circumstances rather than by a person, and was first established in Willer in 1986
• I’m duress by circumstances There is no need for a real threat, just a threat perceived by D, as in Cairns.