Lecture notes
Defences Week 16 part 3
- Module
- Criminal Law
- Institution
- The University Of Essex (UoE)
lecture notes on defences week 16 part 3
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
Criminal law – live webinar - introduction to defences and denials of offendingFundamental concepts
Theft – can often be confusing
Asking the right questions
Who can be liable and why?
Default rule = everyone can be liable
- However, there are rules and exceptions – for example a 5-year-old cannot be liable or
someone seriously mentally disturbed cannot be liable etc.
When can there be no liability? = denial of offences / defences
Infancy (age) – subjects of criminal law
Insanity – denials of offences or defence
Automatism – denial of offence
Diminished responsibility – partial defence to murder
Loss of control – partial defence to murder
Intoxication – denial of offence
The unfitness to plead – procedure
Unfitness to plead
- Can the defendant understand the charges?
- Can they understand the course of trial or give evidence?
- If unfit – trial of the facts – section 4 and 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964
- If AR committed – hospital order, supervision order or an absolute discharge
- Seemed to be unfair and a problematic system
Denial of offence
- When D claims that one or more elements of the offence are absent
- Technically, these are not defences but simply a negation of a particular offence
requirement
- Often linked to issues of capacity
- For denial of offences look at context of AR and MR and the denials at hand rather than
liability
Defences
- A defence is raised where an offence has been committed i.e., all elements of the offence
are present
- You need to discuss and conclude in relation to D’s liability for an offence or an attempted
offence first, then discuss any potential defences
- A general defence tend to be duress, necessity, self-defence
- Partial defences (to murder only) are loss of control and diminished responsibility
- Insanity? Automatism? Intoxication?
, - For defences liability needs to be established first
General defences
- General defences are applicable to all offences unless excluded
- Contrast with partial defences applicable only to murder, loss of control and diminished
responsibility
- Do general and partial defences have anything in common
o ‘mental’ element of the defences is captured differently, with different words and
requirements
Intoxication – denial of offending
- Intoxication can be relevant in two ways:
o Can result in Ds lacking the mens rea of an offence – (case of Kingston- had the MR
despite being intoxicated at the time as it was clear he had paedophilic thoughts
prior to the assault) – (case of Gallagher)
o Can result in Ds making a mistake which may allow them to rely on a defence
- Lack of men’s rea due to intoxication = not applicable if D would have had the MR sober
- Richardson and Irwin 1999 – would D (as opposed to a reasonable person) have foreseen the
risk of injury if sober?
- Murder – specific MR offence
Intoxication and lack of men’s rea
- Is the substance dangerous and non-dangerous?
- Is the intoxication voluntary or involuntary?
- If voluntary, is the crime charged specific or basic intent?
Voluntary intoxication
DPP v Majewski (1977) AC 443 – assaulted several people after consuming drugs and alcohol, JL
confirmed that self-induced intoxication can be a defence to crimes of specific intent, but not crimes
of basic intent – note that one is reckless by voluntary intoxication
MR? – yes= no defence, no = defence if crime one of specific intent but not if one of basic intent
D must have been intoxicated at the time of the offence for Majewski to apply
- Coley, McGhee, Harris (2013) EWCA Crim 223: withdrawal symptoms that produce mental
illness – not intoxication – intoxication rules do not apply if D suffered alcohol related illness
but not drunk at the time of the offence
- Case of Taj (textbook) – self-defence claim – said he made a mistake due to intoxication – at
the time of the offence he was not intoxicated but the facts of his prior intoxication was still
present
No application to basic intent crimes
Criticism of this
- Contrary to CJA 1967 s8
- Contrary to general requirement re coincidence of MR and AR (intoxication happens prior to
the commission of the offence)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller charlie-annmarron. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £5.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
69988 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now