Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
FATAL OFFENCES DEFENCES (CONSENT (HORSEPLAY (Jones: When D threw v in the…
FATAL OFFENCES DEFENCES
INSANITY
-
If successful, D is not guilty by reason of insanity.
-
-
-
-
-
AUTOMATISM
An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing.
-
EXTERNAL CAUSE
PTSD, after being raped (R v T)
-
-
-
-
-
CANNOT BE SELF INDUCED
-
Bailey: D failed to eat after taking insulin. Automatism failed as the condition D suffered was self induced.
CONSENT
Slingsby: V's consent to battery meant D could not be guilty of unlawful manslaughter when she died.
It is not allowed for anything more than common assault because it is not in the public interest that people should harm each other for no good reason. (AG's Ref 6 of 1989)
-
-
-
Therefore D can use consent where there is a high risk of injury but the act has a social purpose (Brown)
-
HORSEPLAY
Jones: When D threw v in the air and failed to catch him, their belief that v consented to rough play was allowed, even if it seemed unreasonable
Atiken: When D set fire to v, his mistaken belief to v's consent was allowed.
-
Richardson & Irwin: When D threw V over a balcony, their drunken, mistaken belief to V's consent was allowed
-
CONTACT SPORT
Wrestling and boxing (within the rules); other contact sport EG: Football / rugby / ice hockey with course of play.
-
-
-
-
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
This means D is under the influence of alcohol, drugs or solvents of his won free will.
However, it s not a true defence but shows D may not have the necessary mens rea.
SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES
Voluntary intoxication can be used to show D had not formed the mens rea for the crime (intention for the crime)
-
-
Sheehan & Moore: D's did not have the mens rea for murder because of their intoxicated states, so their charge was reduced to manslaughter
If D has the mens rea for the crime then he cannot use intoxication to remove his guilt: drunken intent is still intent (AG for Ni v Gallagher)
BASIC INTENT CRIMES
Majewski: D's conduct in taking the drinks and drugs supplies the evidence of mens rea for basic intent crimes.
-
Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent. This is because D's self induced intoxication may be seen as recklessness.
-
-
DURESS
-
Cole: D had been threatened to repay money he owed. He committed 2 robberies and claimed duress. Duress failed as he was told to get the money, not commit a crime.
-
-
-
-
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
-
Kingston: Even though D's drink had been spiked with a drug, he had the necessary mens rea for the crime. The intoxication simply took any resistance D had to committing the crime
-
Hardies: Because D took a prescription drug which made him react very differently than expected he had not been reckless in taking it, so the defence was allowed.
-