Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Defences - Coggle Diagram
Defences
-
Intoxication
-
-
UII
-
- Intoxication was voluntary or involuntary?
R v Allen
R v Hardie
If involuntary there is a complete defence
- Basic or specific intent?
Basic- DPP v Majewski
Specific- R v Lipman
-
-
Insanity
DDI
- Defect of reason
R v Clarke
- Disease of the mind
R v Burgess -attacked woman
in sleep, no recollection had disease of the mind
R v Kemp
Hardening of the arteries, even though it was a disease of the body, it affected the mind under M 'naghten rules
- If he did not know it, he did not know it was wrong
R v Windle
M'Naghten's case- must not know the quality if act or that it was wrong
-
Internal
R v Hennessey
- failed to take insulin
- high blood sugar
- insane automatism (insanity)
External
R v Quick
- no food after insulin
- low blood sugar
- sane automatism (quashed)
Loss of control
-
LQP
- Loss of self control (sudden)
R v Jewell
- Caused by a qualifying trigger:
Section 55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009
- Victim fears serious violence from D towards the victim or another
R v Pearson
- Extremely grave circumstances and a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
R v Dawes
Excludes:
- self induced loss of control
- sexual infidelity R v Clinton, not just sexual infidelity
- Person of same age and gender but normal tolerance and restraint would act the same way in circumstances