General defences

Pregunta	Respuesta
M'Naughten	leading case on insanity
Clarke	absent mindedley took items from supermarket while depressed. Temporary absent mindedness is not enough.
Hennessey	Diabetic took a car while disqualified. Failed to take his insulin, the internal factor of diabetes caused a defect of reason.
Quick	diabetic nurse attacked patient as she failed to eat after taking insulin. Failure was an external factor so the defence would be automatism not insanity.
Burgess	D claimed he was sleepwalking when he hit V over the head with a bottle, they said the defect of reason was an internal factor so was insanity.
Kemp	artery problem, reduced the flow of blood to the brain. Had lapses of conciousness and hit his wife with a hammer during one, internal factor
Sullivan	hit out in an epileptic fit, epilepsy is a 'disease of the mind'
Windle	He knew what he was doing was wrong, killed his wife and said 'i suppose ill hang for this'
Lipman (insanity)	Thought he was being attacked by snakes after taking LSD and killed his girlfriend, defence failed as it was caused by drugs
Bratty	Leading case of automatism
AG ref no2 of 1992	D killed two people when he lost control on motorway in a lorry, evidence showed he had some control over what he was doing.
Hill V Baxter	Courts gave example of external factor. swarm of bees
Hardie (automatism)	set fire to wardrobe after taking valium and it having an adverse affect. A distinction was made between drugs that are supposed to calm and be unpredictable.
Lipman (automatism)	voluntarily took LSD which is known to be unpredictable
Lipman (automatism)	was guilty of manslaughter as he had no mens rea
Majewski	distinction between specific and basic intent offences
Gallagher	Dutch courage, drunken intent is still intent, guilty of murder
Kingston	d's coffee was full of drugs and he indecently assaulted a young boy, said he wouldnt have if it wasnt for the drugs, intended to commit the offence so guilty.
Martin	cant take into account psychiatric condition eg. paranoid personality disorder.
Williams	D should be judged on the facts they believe even if it was a genuine mistake.
O' Grady	If d makes a mistake because they are intoxicated, they cannot rely on self defence.
Beckford	Pre emptive strike.
Clegg	Excessive force causes defence to fail
AG ref no6 of 1980	General rule- where an injury is caused consent is not a defence unless it falls into one of the public policies
Barnes	conduct in sports must be bad and unexpected for their to be a conviction. Made a bad tackel and broke his leg.
Billinghurst	D punched v in a rugby game, was unexpected and not part of the game
Wilson	D branded his intitials on his wifes buttocks, body adournment to make the body more beautiful so consent was a defence.
Jones	rough horseplay- boy thrown in the air by older school boys, suffered many injuries, not harm was intended.
Aitken	raf initiation ceremony, mistaken belief that v would consent to the act.
Tabassum	fraud to the quality of the act. Man checked womens breasts when he was not qualified.
Richardson	No fraud, dentist was suspended but carried on treating patients. The patients still consented to that dentist treating them so not guilty.
Dica	D gave many V's HIV, consented to the sex but wouldnt have if they knew what he had.
Olugboja	Difference between consent and submission.
Burrell v Harmer	V must be old enough to give consent. 11 and 12 year olds with tattoos.
Wilson v Pringle	We consent to the everyday jostlings of life.

Siguiente

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por charlottebumby hace más de 10 años