Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

FAULT - Coggle Diagram

- - - - defence based on fact D has been effectively forced to commit crime
      - courts cautious to limit availability of defence to situations where D lacks fault
        
        e.g. if D joins gang knowing they were violent, they won't be able to claim defence as their at fault
        
        R v Ali
  - - - D must be labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature + quality of the act they were doing or if they did know it, that they didn't know they were doing what was wrong
    - - D so intoxicated they were incapable of forming mens rea
      - specific intent or basis intent
      - voluntary or involuntary
    - - an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they're doing such as an act done while suffering from concussion or while sleepwalking
  - - - Sweet v Parsley
  - - - Beckford v The Queen
    - - factual causation alone not usually sufficient to satisfy actus reus so legal causation also needs satisfying
      - individual responsibility
- - - - reflects degree of fault
  - - - Spartan Steel v Martin & Co.
      - prevents court becoming flooded with claims
    - - Hedley Byrne v Heller
      - shows court's wish to allow claims where D at fault as long as this can be balanced with other priorities
  - - - courts wish to limit claims to manageable amount so primary victims + secondary victims in limited circumstances can claim
  - - - no need to demonstrate fault
      - where D obviously at fault, this is taken into account + makes it more likely it'll be decided D unreasonably interfered with C's use or enjoyment of land
        
        e.g. when D acts with malice
        
        Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
    - - D liable if material escapes from from their land to neighbour's land regardless of fault