Defences-law

Cards (33)

  • 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.