Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defences (Self-defence (Can be relied on if (Trigger: D genuinely believed…

- - - - Belief need not be reasonable (R v Gladstone Williams)
      - If mistaken belief is due to intoxication cannot rely on it (R v O'Connor)
        
        Applies to both basic and specific intent crimes
      - No duty to retreat
        
        Not taking an opportunity to do so may be relevant factor
      - Can make first blow and still rely on defence (R v Beckford)
        
        Attack needs to be imminent (Devlin v Armstrong; A-G's Reference (No 2 of 1983))
      - Can be an antagonist (R v Forrester)
      - Can use force against an innocent TP (R v Hichens)
    - - Householder
        
        s 76(5A)
        
        Must still be reasonable (R (on application of Denby Collins) v SoS for Justice)
        
        Was force used grossly disproportionate?
        
        Defined by s 76(8A)-(8F) CJIA 2008
      - Non-householder
        
        s 76(3-8) CJIA 2008
        
        Was response reasonable based on circumstances as believed by D (R v Owino; s 76(3) CJIA 2008)
        
        Also danger as perceived by D (R v Harvey)
        
        Have regard to split second nature of decision (A-G's Reference for N Ireland (No 1 of 1975); Palmer v R)
- - - - Basic intent
        
        Would D have seen the risk if sober (R v Coley, McGhee & Harris)
      - Specific intent
- - - - Threat must be directed at a person whose safety D would reasonably regard himself as responsible
        
        Can be someone D has never met (R v Shayler)
      - Reasonable belief (R v Graham)
      - Would a reasonable person have responded in the same way?
        
        Sober person of reasonable firmness
        
        Taking into account physical characteristics including 'recognised mental ilness or psychiatric condition' (R v Bowen)
        
        Proportionality (Abbott v R)
      - Criminal offence directly caused by threats relied upon
        
        Must be nexus between threat and crime (R v Cole)
        
        Need not be sole reason (R v Valderrama-Vega)
      - No possible evasive action
        
        Threat must have such immediacy as to prevent any evasive course of action (R v Hasan c.f. R v Hudson & Taylor)
      - Cannot rely on duress to which they have voluntarily laid themselves open
        
        Joining a gang (R v Sharp)
        
        Unless possibility of violence unforeseeable (R v Shepherd)
      - Threat to cause death or serious injury
  - - - Test (R v Martin)
        
        Was D impelled to act because of a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation giveing him good cause to fear that death or serious injury would result in the alternative
        
        Would a sober person of reasonable firmness have responded as D did
      - Threat must be of death or serious injury (R v Martin)
      - Not limited to traffic offences (R v Pommell)
      - Not to protect from psychological injury (R v Baker and Wilkins)
      - Threat of death must imminent, NOT immediate (R v Abdul-Hussain)
- - - - Did D intend to cause ABH+
        
        Reckless?
        
        No guidance. Check for exception if prohibited harm
        
        Yes
        
        Consent not available unless exception applies
        
        Exceptions
        
        Medical Treatment
        
        Can consent to treatment/surgery which causes harm
        
        Can consent to high risk of death.
        
        Sport
        
        Implied consent to injury incurred during course of game
        
        2 more items...
        
        Horeseplay
        
        Much criticised exception
        
        Youth club boy tossed leading to ruptured spleen and broken arm (R v Jones)
        
        2 more items...
        
        Tattooing/Personal Adornment
        
        Hot wife to brand wife at her request. Deemed no different to other personal adornment (R v Wilson)
        
        Does not include body modification e.g. Removal of ear, nipple and forking of tongue (R v BM)
        
        Sexual Gratification/Accidental infliction of harm
        
        Can consent to risk of contracting STD (R v Dica)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Cannot consent to deliberate ABH+ for sexual gratification (R v Brown; R v Emmett)
        
        Lawful correction of a child
        
        Parent has defence of reasonable chastisement in applying force to a child (R v Hopely)
        
        1 more item...
        
        No & did not see risk
        
        Consent available (R v Meachen)
    - - Consent available if
        
        V consented, or
        
        D honestly believed V was consenting
        
        Can be honestly held drunken belief (R v Richardson and Irwin)