Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
S2, L4, L5, L6 - Defences - Coggle Diagram
S2, L4, L5, L6 - Defences
-
Necessity
Mouse's Case (1608) - D ferryman threw passengers’ luggage into Thames to prevent a sinking. D found not guilty of criminal damage as necessary action to save life.
R v Dudley and Stephen - Necessity is NOT a defence to murder. Shipwrecked men ate boy, who was very ill in order to survive - found guilty of murder.
-
Conjoined twins (2001) - Necessity defence succesful. CoA found operation to save one twin, which would kill the other to be a neecessity.
Automatism
-
Law Comm 2013, 1.27: If a person totally lacked control of his or her body at the time of the offence, and that lack of control was not caused by his or her own prior fault, then he or she may plead not guilty and may be acquitted.”
-
-
-
Insanity
-
Disease of the mind
Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287 – D is diabetic and not taken medicine do has hyperglycemia attack. CoA found D’s evidence amounted to insanity defence – “disease of the mind means a disease which affects the proper functioning of the mind” – per Lord Lane.
M'Naghten's Case (1843) - At time of defence D was "labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mine, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong."
-
Duress
2 types of duress, duress by threats and duress by circumsatnces.
-
Duress by threat
Graham (1982)- test of - ‘…a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of [D]…’
All that matter is that D reasonably believed there to be a threat of death of serious injury, even if there was no such threat. – Subjective test.
-
R v. Bowen [1996] - D a simple, vulnerable man, threatened unless he obtained services by deception after home threatened with petrol-bombing. However couldn’t use defence due to not meeting the objective test set out in Graham for resistance to threat.
-