4878654
Descripción
Fichas por katy stopforth, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por katy stopforth
hace casi 9 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Voluntary Intoxication Intoxication | A person who has chosen to become intoxicated. Specific Intent Crimes DPP v Beard (voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea for specific intent crimes) R v Lipman (acquitted of murder and charged with manslaughter – LSD trip) R v Kingston (drugged intent is still intent – sexually assaulted 15y/o when drugged) AG NI v Gallagher (intoxication for Dutch courage can be convicted on the basis of a continuing act) Basic Intent Crimes R v Majewski (the jury must consider is the D was reckless with basic intent crimes) R v Lipman (if D knew there was a risk of him acting a certain way, he is being reckless) |
| Involuntary Intoxication Intoxication | A person who becomes intoxicated without his knowledge (e.g. being spiked) or by taking drugs for proper medical purposes. Basic and Specific Intent Crimes Did the defendant have the necessary mens rea? Yes – Guilty (R v Kingston) No (Basic Intent) – Not Guilty (R v Hardie) No (Specific Intent) – Not Guilty (not been reckless) Other Points: - if D knows he is taking drink/drugs, he cannot rely on the fact that they are more powerful than expected and may lose his defence is he disregards medical evidence. - R v Kingston (drugged intent is still intent – sexually assaulted 15 y/o when drugged) |
| Circumstances where it is lawful to use force Lawful Force | “A person may use such force as reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in the defence of himself or another.” to defence oneself or others to make a lawful arrest to prevent crime to protect property to evict a trespasser who refuses to leave by a parent to discipline a child |
| Defendants Conduct Lawful Force | R v Bird (pre-emptive strikes are allowed - the defendant need not try to run away before using force) |
| Subjective Element Lawful Force | D may use force to defend himself, or another in the circumstances he believes them to be in R v Williams (Gladstone) (honest mistake is sufficient – confirmed in s76 (3) Criminal Justice and immigration Act 2008) Other Points: R v Bird (Lord Lane – “if D is proved to have been attacking or retaliating or revenging himself, then he was not acting in self defence”) |
| Objective Element Lawful Force | the force must be reasonable and necessary Hatton (if a mistake as to the amount of force used was induced by intoxication, self defence cannot be relied upon) Lipman (could not plead self-defence as he was intoxicated) |
| Excessive Force Lawful Force | R v Clegg (Ds fourth shot was when V was escaping and therefore not lawful) R v Martin (Ds shot at intruders as they ran away was unlawful) |
| Two Part Test Duress by Threat | Graham Test Did D feel they had a good cause to fear? Would a sober and reasonable person, sharing Ds characteristics have acted in the same or a similar way in those circumstances? |
| Characteristics that can be taken into account Duress by Threat | R v Bowen Age Sex Pregnancy Physical Disability Recognised Psychiatric Condition |
| Characteristics that can't be taken into account Duress by Threat | Self-induced characteristics can’t be taken into account (R v Flatt) Drunkenness Drug Addiction |
| Limitations Duress by Threat | can't be used for murder and attempted murder (R v Dudley and Stephens) no defence for secondary offenders |
| Mnemonic Duress by Threat | ‘Only Students Who Revise Ever Intend Victory’ O Only applies to property and non-fatal offences S Serious injury or death must be threatened (Valderamma-Vega) W Who? Someone you feel responsible for (Shayler) R Resistance to threat measured by two-part Graham test (Graham) E Escape Opportunities? If so, no defence. (Hasan) I Immediacy of threat? If not immediate, no defence. (Hasan) V Voluntary Association? If no voluntary association, no threat. (Fitzpatrick / Sharp) |
| Other Cases Duress by Threat | R v Abdul-Hussain (CoA preferred the use of imminent to immediate – overrules by Hasan) R v Cole (must be a causal connection between the threat and the commission of the offence) |
| Duress of Circumstances | This defence applies where D believed the circumstances threatened death or injury to himself or others unless the crime was committed. |
| Two Part Test Duress of Circumstances | Did D have a good cause to believe that death or serious injury would result? Would a SRM with the same characteristics as the accused respond in the same way? Rodger and Rose (two inmates escaped) |
| Reasonable and Proportionate Action Duress of Circumstances | R v Conway (D drove away from police – not knowing they were police) |
| Cases where the defence succeeded Duress of Circumstances | R v Conway (D drove away from police – not knowing they were police) R v Martin (D, disqualified, drove son to work after wife threatened suicide) DPP v Bell (D drove away off whilst drunk to avoid attackers) |
| Cases where the defence did not succeed Duress of Circumstances | R v Baker and Wilkins (mother broke down door – duress of circumstances denied) R v Altham (reluctant to allow defence – could become an excuse for crime) Pommell (won’t succeed for murder) |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.