defences.pdf
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
DEFENCES
![Page 2: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
LEARNING OUTCOMES
• To understand the requirements of each defence and its applicability
• To apply the defences to a factual situation
• To criticize and comment on the different defences
2
![Page 3: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
INTRODUCTION
Considers the law from the Defendant’s point of view.
Two main types:
a) General defences:
(i) full acquittal;
(ii) generally available for all offences (except duress); and
b) Specific and partial defences:
(i) reduction of the charge;
(ii) only available for murder.
3
![Page 4: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Introduction (cont’): • There are 3 broad categories of general defences:
Defences
Acting permissibly
Self-defence
Necessity
Chastisement
Consent
Acting under pressure
Duress
Coercion
Entrapment
Superior Orders
Mental condition
Automatism
Insanity
Infancy
Intoxication
Mistake
4
![Page 5: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
PRIVATE/SELF DEFENCE • Authority: section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
section 76 Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008
• Elements: R –v- Martin:
a) victim poses a threat;
b) threat unjustified;
c) use of force necessary;
d) degree of force reasonable; and
e) defend himself or another or property.
5
![Page 6: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Private/self defence (cont’): • The victim must pose a threat
R v Hitchens
• The threat must be unjustified
Jones
• The use of force must be necessary
a) Bird
b) McInnes
c) Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1983)
d) Attorney-General for Northern Ireland’s Reference (No. 1 of 1975)
6
![Page 7: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Private/self defence (cont’):
• The use of the force must be reasonable
a) Shaw:
b) Clegg:
c) Yaman
d) Oye
• The defendant must be acting in order to defend himself or another or property
Bird
7
![Page 8: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Private/self defence (cont’): • APPLICABILITY:
a) Renouf;
b) Blake –v- DPP;
c) DPP –v- Bayer
• MISTAKE & SELF- DEFENCE:
a) Gladstone Williams
b) Beckford –v- R
• SELF-INDUCED SELF DEFENCE
Rashford
8
![Page 9: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Private/self defence (cont’):
• HRA AND SELF DEFENCE
a) Article 2 ECHR
b) Andronicou and Constantinou –v- Cyprus
c) McCann –v- UK
Effect of Article 2 of the ECHR:
a) the level of force; and
b) mistake as to the threat.
9
![Page 10: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
NECESSITY
• General view
The courts have not accepted a general defence of necessity:
a) Dudley and Stephens
b) Kitson
c) Southwork LBC –v- Williams
10
![Page 11: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Necessity (cont’): • Limited defence a) Damage or theft in the public interest. b) Damage of own property or interferes with
another’s property in order to save his own person or property.
c) Person who is unable to consent. Re F (Mental
patient: Sterilisation) d) Breaking of traffic regulations Johnson –v-
Phillips e) Defence to murder Re A (Children) (Conjoined
Twins: Surgical Separation).
11
![Page 12: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
CHASTISEMENT
• Examples:
a) A –v- UK
b) R –v- H
c) s58 Children Act 2004
• Only a defence to assault or battery.
12
![Page 13: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
DURESS
2 Forms
Duress by threats
Threat from another person
Duress of circumstances
Threat from surrounding
circumstances 13
![Page 14: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Duress (cont’) • Authorities:
a) R v Graham approved in R –v- Howe:
2 questions:
“(i) Was the D impelled to act because as a result of what he reasonably believed the other had said or done, he had good cause to fear that if he did not so act the other would kill him or… cause him serious physical injury;
(ii) If so, would a sober person of reasonable firmness sharing the characteristics of the D would have responded to whatever he reasonably believed the other said or did by committing the crime.”
14
![Page 15: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Duress (cont’) b) Hasan:
(i) threat of death or serious injury; (ii) against D or immediate family or someone close
to him or someone for whom D would reasonably regard himself as responsible;
(iii) D’s perception of the threat and response assessed objectively;
(iv) D’s conduct was directly caused by the threat; (v) no evasive action which could reasonably have been
taken; (vi) threats not voluntarily opened to; and (vii)unavailable for murder, attempted murder or
treason.
15
![Page 16: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Duress (cont’) • THE D MUST ACT BECAUSE OF A THREAT OF
DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY
Considerations:
• The defendant must act because of the threat or the circumstances and not for any other reason.
a) Valderrama-Vega
b) DPP –v- Bell
c) DPP –v- Mullally
16
![Page 17: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Duress (cont’)
• The threat of death or GBH
a) Baker and Wilkins
b) R v A
• Victim of the threat
a) Ortiz:
b) Hurley and Murray
c) Conway
d) R –v- Z and Abdul-Hussain
17
![Page 18: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Duress (cont’) • Threat must not come from the defendant himself.
a) Rodger and Rose
b) R –v- Quayle
• Reasonable belief of a threat.
a) Graham
b) Cairns:
c) Safi and others
d) R –v- Z
• Opportunity to escape: Heath
18
![Page 19: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Duress (cont’)
• The threat of imminent harm
a) R –v- Abdul-Hussain; Aboud; Hasan; Naji; Muhssin; Hosham
b) Hasan
c) R –v- N
• Good cause to believe the threat could be carried out.
• D must not have put himself in a position in which he could have been threatened in this way
R –v- Z
19
![Page 20: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Duress (cont’)
• THE REASONABLE PERSON MUST HAVE RESPONDED TO THE THREAT IN THE WAY THAT THE DEFENDANT DID
a) Howe
(i) person of reasonable firmness with the D’s characteristics.
(ii) severity of the threat and gravity of the required crime and the D’s response.
20
![Page 21: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Duress (cont’)
b) Defendant’s characteristics which should be attributed to the reasonable person.
(i) Graham
(ii) R –v- Bowen
• Availability of the defence
R –v- Howe
21
![Page 22: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Duress (cont’)
• Relationship between duress, duress of circumstances and necessity
a) S (DM)
b) Objections to the above:
(i) Availability of defences.
22
![Page 23: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Duress (cont’)
(ii) Immanency of threats of death or GBH.
(iii) Concepts behind the defences.
(iv) Creation of a duty to act.
(v) Excusatory and justificatory.
23
![Page 24: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
COERCION • Authority: s 47 Criminal Justice Act 1925
• Elements:
a) A wife who commits crime in her husband’s presence.
b) Husband coerced her into committing the crime.
• Availability:
Defence is available to all crimes except treason or murder.
24
![Page 25: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
ENTRAPMENT
• Sang
• Looseley
• Teixeira de Castor –v- Portugal
25
![Page 26: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
AUTOMATISM • Definition:
a) Bratty –v- Attorney-General for Northern Ireland:
“acts done while unconscious and to spasms, reflex actions and convulsions…”
b) Watmore –v- Jenkins:
“an involuntary movement of the body or limbs of a person”.
c) Broome –v- Perkins
26
![Page 27: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Automatism (cont’)
•A complete loss of voluntary control
Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992)
•An external factor
a) Rabey
b) R –v- T
27
![Page 28: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Automatism (cont’)
• The defendant was not at fault in causing the condition
a) R –v- Bailey
b) R –v- Quick and Paddison
hypoglacaemia = automatism
c) R –v- Hennesy
hyperglacaemia = insanity
d) R –v- Burgess
sleepwalking = insanity 28
![Page 29: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
INSANITY
Relevant in 2 ways
Unfitness to be tried
Renders trial impracticable
Unfit to be tried
Plea of insanity at
trial
29
![Page 30: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Insanity (cont’) • Unfitness to be tried.
a) Renders trial impracticable
s 1(1) Mental Health Act 1983
b) Unfitness to be tried
(i) ss4 and 4A Criminal Procedure(Insanity) Act 1964
(ii) M
(iii) R –v- H (Fitness to Plead) 30
![Page 31: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Insanity (cont’)
• Plea of insanity raised at trial
Definition: M’Naghten’s Rules:
“… the party accused was labouring under 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, he did not know he was doing what was wrong…”
Confirmed in R –v- Sullivan 31
![Page 32: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Insanity (cont’)
Disease of the mind
Defect of reason
Not know the nature or quality
of the act
Not know that the act was
wrong
32
![Page 33: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Insanity (cont’)
• Elements
a) Disease of the mind
Kemp
b) Defect of reason
Clarke
33
![Page 34: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Insanity (cont’) c) The defendant did not know the nature and
quality of his act or that it was wrong.
(i) Did not know the nature and quality of his act
(aa) Codere
(bb) R –v- Sullivan
(ii) Not knowing that the act is wrong
(aa) Windle
(bb) DPP –v- Harper 34
![Page 35: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Insanity (cont’)
• Miscellaneous:
a) Human Rights Act 1998 and the definition of insanity
i) Article 5 of the ECHR
ii) Winterwerp –v- Netherlands
b) Insanity and offences of strict liability
i) Hennesy
ii) DPP –v- Harper
c) Insanity and intoxication
i) Lipman
ii) Burns
35
![Page 36: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Automatism cf Insanity cf DR Automatism Insanity DR
Focus Complete loss of voluntary control
Disease of the mind
AOMF
Cause External Internal External/internal
Affects AR MR AR & MR
Effect - Defect of reason Affects an ability
Availability All offences All offences Only murder
Verdict Not guilty Not guilty by reason of insanity
Voluntary manslaughter
Result Release Mandatory hospitalization
Maximum life imprisonment
36
![Page 37: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
CHILDREN
• Under 10 years old
S50 Children and Young Persons Act 1933
• Child between 10 to 14
S34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998
37
![Page 38: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
INTOXICATION • Consumption of alcohol and/or drugs.
• Relevant in 3 ways:
a) Defendant uses it to show he lacked MR;
b) Prosecution uses it to establish his MR; and
c) Certain crimes specifically refer to being intoxicated.
38
![Page 39: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Intoxication (cont’): • Intoxication as a denial of the MR
a) Beard :
Defence only if incapable of forming MR.
b) Pordage:
Question: did the defendant in fact form the necessary MR even though intoxicated?
c) R –v- Kingston:
D had MR = not a defence.
d) Allen
39
![Page 40: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Intoxication (cont’):
• Involuntary intoxication and no MR
a) Involuntarily intoxicated = forced to drink/consume drugs
b) Involuntarily intoxicated + lacks MR = must be acquitted (specific/basic intent crime).
R –v- Kingston
40
![Page 41: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Intoxication (cont’):
• Voluntary intoxication
a) Voluntarily intoxicated + cannot form MR = acquittal (specific intent crime).
b) Drunken intent = an intent
DPP –v- Majewski
• Intoxication induced with the intention of committing a crime
“Dutch courage”= guilty.
Attorney-General for Northern Ireland –v- Gallagher
41
![Page 42: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Intoxication (cont’):
• Present law
1. Voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated + MR = guilty.
2. Involuntarily intoxicated + no MR = acquittal.
3. Voluntarily intoxicated + no intention + reckless = acquittal of a specific intent crime but guilty of a basic intent crime.
4. Dutch courage = guilty even if at the time of the offence he lacked the MR.
42
![Page 43: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
MISTAKE • Usually considered in light of its effect on another
defence.
• 2 types:
a) Mistake as to facts; and
b) Mistake as to law.
43
![Page 44: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Mistake (cont’):
•MISTAKES AS TO THE FACTS:
•3 types:
a) reasonable mistake
b) unreasonable mistake
c) druken mistake.
44
![Page 45: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Mistake (cont’):
• Self-defence
1. Reasonable mistake:
Williams: can rely + judged on facts as believed
2. Unreasonable mistake:
The defendant’s belief cannot be unreasonable.
3. Drunken mistake:
Hatton: cannot rely
45
![Page 46: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Mistake (cont’):
• Duress
1. Reasonable mistakes:
Martin: Can rely
2. Unreasonable mistake: cannot rely
3. Drunken mistake: cannot rely
46
![Page 47: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Mistake (cont’):
• Loss of Control
1. Reasonable mistake: can rely.
2. Unreasonable mistake:
Section 55(3) CJA 2009: can rely
Section 55(4) CJA 2009: cannot rely.
3. Drunken mistake:
Unlikely to be able to rely on the defence.
47
![Page 48: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Mistake (cont’): • Consent
1. Reasonable mistakes: can rely.
2. Unreasonable mistake: cannot rely.
3. Drunken mistake:
(i) Fotheringham
(ii) Richards and Irvin
(iii) Jaggard –v- Dickenson
48
![Page 49: DEFENCES.pdf](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051117/563db8ac550346aa9a95d968/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Mistake (cont’):
• MISTAKES AS TO THE LAW:
• a) Mistakes which do not negate MR
“Ignorantia juris neminem excusa”
Not negate liability except:
(i) Statutory instrument has not been publicize
(ii) Wrong advice by a state agency.
• b) Mistakes of law which do negate the MR
49