criminal law revision booklet

8/11/2019 Criminal Law Revision Booklet

1/127


2/127


3/127

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY REVISION

Elements of a crime:Actus Reus + Mens Rea +The Absence of a Valid Defence

ACTUS REUS

The physical element of the defence: an act, a failure to act (an omission) or a stateof aairs!" #or some crimes, the actus reus must also result in a conse$uence e"%"

for murder or for A&'"

Acts Res mst !e "olntar# 'ill &a*ter (automatism)

State of a$airs:here D is conicted een thou%h they did not act oluntarily"

arsonneur- .in/ar

OMISSIONS

Normal Rle0 an omission cannot ma1e a person %uilty

Com%arison &it' ot'er le(al s#stems0 %ood 2amaritan la e*ists in some

systems e"%" #rance"

E)ce%tion to t'e normal rle :

An act of 3arliament can create liability for an omission e"%" failure to report a

road tra4c incident, failin% to proide a specimen of breath

#or common5la crimes an omission is only su4cient for the actus reus if

there is a duty to act"a" A contractual Duty *Pitt&oo+,

b" A duty because of a relationship *-i!!ins . Proctor,c" A duty hich has been ta1en on oluntarily *Stone .

/o!inson,d" A duty throu%h one!s o4cial position */#t'am,e" A duty hich arises because the defendant has set in motion a

chain of eents *Miller0 Santana 1 Berm+e2,

Clari3cation nee+e+ in certain areas:

/iscontinance of me+ical treatment if it is in the best interests of the

patient then it is 67T an omission hich can form the actus reus of murder

(Air+ale N4S Trst " Blan+,

Unla&fl Act Mansla('ter cannot be committed by an omission

because there must be an unlaful A8T (Lo&e,

-ross Ne(li(ence mansla('tercan be committed by an omission" 9f a

duty of care e*ists then the D can be liable if an omission or failure to act

causes death"


4/127

CAUSATION

5'ere a conse6ence mst !e %ro"e+ *RESULT RAT4ER T4AN CON/UCT

CRIMES,7 t'en t'e %rosection 'as to s'o& t'at t'e /8s con+ct &as:

T'e factal case of t'e conse6ence

T'e le(al case of t'e conse6ence

T'ere &as no inter"enin( act &'ic' !ro9e t'e c'ain of casation

Factal

&ut for Test! (5'ite0 Pa(ett,

Le(al

8onduct hich is more than a minimal cause! of the conse$uence but not

necessarily a substantial cause! (imse# 1 More than a sli%ht or triin% lin1)

T'e T'in S9ll Rle 1 ta1in% the ictim as you ;nd them (Blae,

Inter"enin( Acts

9n order to brea1 the chain of causation so that D is not responsible for the

conse$uence, the interenin% act must be su4ciently independent of the D!s

conduct and su4ciently serious"

Act of t'e "ictim t'emsel"es 5 if D causes the ictim to react in a

foreseeable ay then any in


5/127

o Life S%%ort Mac'ines 1The sitchin% o of a life5support machine

!# a +octor hen it has been decided that the ictim is brain dead,

does not brea1 the chain of causation *Malc'ere9,

A natral !t n%re+icta!le e"ent 1 e"%" ambulance crash hich 1ills a

ictim ho suered minor inohn, ho has learnin% di4culties, is a member of his school?s under5@ mi*edhoc1ey team" The team?s captain, Ben, constantly criticises >ohn in front of the othermembers of the team for bein% oerei%ht and slo" Durin% a particularly rou%h%ame a%ainst a rial school, >ohn lost the ball to Batie, a %irl from the opposin%team, ho promptly scored" Ben ran oer to >ohn, shoutin% furiously, Cyou fat slu%,een a %irl can play better than youE >ohn felt an%ry and humiliated and hen Batiene*t moed in to tac1le him, he lost all restraint and struc1 her saa%ely on the le%ith his stic1" After the %ame as oer, Batie noticed a sellin% in her le%, and

shoed it to her sports teacher, isa" isa said that it as probably


6/127

>une and Bitty or1 as care assistants in a nursin% home" 7ne of the patients, Mary,

is ery heay and un5cooperatie" 7ne mornin% Mary stubbornly refused to %et into

her heelchair" >une lost her temper and for a moment she did not care hether she

hurt Mary or not" Althou%h it as strictly a%ainst the nursin% home?s rules, she

%rasped Mary under the armpits and physically hauled her into the heelchair" Theheelchair toppled under Mary?s ei%ht, crushin% Bitty a%ainst the all" Mary be%an

to complain that her arm as hurtin%" Bitty as also in pain but she decided not to

tell anyone hat had happened in case her friend, >une, %ot the sac1" ater that

day, the Matron noticed that Mary?s arm loo1ed sollen, so she droe Mary to the

hospital to hae it I5rayed" 9t turned out that Mary?s arm as bro1en and the

hospital decided to 1eep her in for a fe days" Meanhile, Bitty as in a%ony but

did not dare to complain for fear of Matron ;ndin% out ho Mary had come by her

in


7/127

upheld conictions for murder here ictims ere on life5support machines and thedoctors sitched o the machine after tests shoed that the ictims ere brain5dead" The 8A reco%nised that brain death is the accepted medical criterion of death,but did not actually decide that this is the le%al de;nition of death" 9n "irdale &HS'rust %Bland, there are dicta in the 'ouse of ords to the eect that brain5stem death is

the le%al test of death" 8harlie if 8harlie!s actions ere held to be the le%al causeof death, he may be %uiltyof murder or manslau%hter dependin% on his state of mind hen he struc1 Daid"

MENS REA

INTENTION

a decision to brin% about, in so far as it lies ithin the accused!s poer, the

prohibited conse$uence, no matter hether the accused desired that conse$uence

of his act or not! (Mo'an,

M7T9VL 92 9RRLLVA6T 96 DL89D96 .'LT'LR D 'AD 96TL6T976

/IRECT INTENTION

The defendant set out to achiee a particular result or conse$uence" They foresa a

particular result as a certainty and anted to brin% it about" Dened in Moloneyas:

a true desire to bring about the conseuences.

IN/IRECT@OBLIUE INTENTION *foresi('t of conse6ence,

.here D intends one thin% but the actual conse$uence hich occurs is another

thin%" 'ere it is a $uestion of foresi%ht of conse$uence" 9f, in achiein% the other

thin%, D foresa that he ould also cause the actual conse$uence, then he may befound %uilty"

Case La&:

Molone#: '!s con;rmed that een here it as not someone!s desire,

purpose and so on, the


8/127

5oolin:The


9/127

TRANSFERRE/ MALICE : D can be %uilty if he intended to commit a similar crime

but a%ainst a dierent ictim" (Latimer,< &ut here the mens rea is completely

dierent type of oence then D may not be %uilty (Pem!ilton,

-ENERAL MALICE: D may not hae a speci;c ictim in mind e"%" terrorism" 9n this

case the D!s mens rea is held to apply to the actual ictim"

COINCI/ENCE OF ACTUS REUS AN/ MENS REA: &oth actus reus and mens rea

must be present for an oence to ta1e place" This can happen here the actus reus

and mens rea combine in a series of acts (T'a!o Meli " R0 C'rc',< As lon% as

they coincide at some point (say here the actus reus is a continuin% act) then D

ill be %uilty (Fa(an,


10/127

ACTUS REUS AN/ MENS REA OF OFFENCES RELEVANT TO T4E EAM

MUR/ER:

AR: D 1ills a reasonable creature in bein%, under the Nueens peace, and the 1illin%

is unlaful

MR: L*press malice aforethou%ht hich is the 96TL6T976 to 1ill or implied malice

aforethou%ht hich is the 96TL6T976 to cause %rieous bodily harm"

BUR/EN@STAN/AR/ OF PROOF:The prosecution must proe beyond reasonable

doubt"

VOLUNTARY MANSLAU-4TER:

2ame AR O MR as Murder, but the 1illin% occurs hen the D is under diminished

responsibility, loss of control or suicide pact" 9n other ords the D 1ills a reasonable

creature in bein%, under the Nueens peace, and the 1illin% is unlaful" They intend

to 1ill or cause &', but at their state of mind at the time of the 1illin% means that a

partial defence e*ists"

BUR/EN@STAN/AR/ OF PROOF: Defendant has to proe on a balance of

probabilities"

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAU-4TER:

UNLA5FUL ACT MANSLAU-4TER:

AR: D does an unlaful act (Lam!0 Lo&e, hich is dan%erous on an obones, etc"

BUR/EN@STAN/AR/ OF PROOF:

3rosecution must proe beyond reasonable doubt"

-ROSS NE-LI-ANCE MANSLAU-4TER

AR: Act or omission in breach of an e*istin% duty of care hich creates a ris1 of

death and results in death"


11/127

MR: 8onduct so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or

omission" 8onduct beyond a matter of mere compensation, shoin% such disre%ard

for life and safety of others as to amount to a crime"




12/127

RECLESS MANSLAU-4TER

AR: An act or omission hich results in death"

MR: Rec1lessness / realises that there was a risk of the consequencehaening an! !eci!e to take that risk"



ASSAULT . BATTERY:

AR: causin% V to fear immediate unlaful force (assault) or application of unlaful

iolence een the sli%htest touchin% (battery)

MR:9ntention of, or sub


13/127



ACTIVITIES

Visit each of the problem $uestions and assess hether or not D has demonstratedthe mens rea for the releant oence(s)"

>ohn, ho has learnin% di4culties, is a member of his school?s under5@ mi*edhoc1ey team" The team?s captain, Ben, constantly criticises >ohn in front of the othermembers of the team for bein% oerei%ht and slo" Durin% a particularly rou%h%ame a%ainst a rial school, >ohn lost the ball to Batie, a %irl from the opposin%team, ho promptly scored" Ben ran oer to >ohn, shoutin% furiously, Cyou fat slu%,een a %irl can play better than youE >ohn felt an%ry and humiliated and hen Batiene*t moed in to tac1le him, he lost all restraint and struc1 her saa%ely on the le%ith his stic1" After the %ame as oer, Batie noticed a sellin% in her le%, andshoed it to her sports teacher, isa" isa said that it as probably


14/127

state of mind mens rea of murder 0 malice aforethou%ht an intention to 1illor cause %rieous bodily harm: $aloney" This re$uires 1noled%e that one?s actionis irtually certain to cause death or %rieous bodily harm: Woolin" Rec1lessness illnot su4ce" >une?s state of mind loo1s li1e rec1lessness rather than intention tocause &', so ould not amount to mens rea of murder"

8harlie became ery depressed after his %irlfriend Ruby, ended their relationshipand married Daid" 'e rote do/ens of letters to Ruby, be%%in% her to leae Daidand come bac1 to him" Lentually, Daid ent to see 8harlie at his at, and toldhim that this behaiour ould hae to stop" 8harlie as oercome by a


15/127

9ntention

Rec1lessness

ross 6e%li%ence

Mens

Rea

/irect:The defendant desires aconse$uence and it is his

purpose to achiee it"In+irect@o!li6e:A result is indirectly intendedeen thou%h not desired, hen

(@) That result is a irtuallycertain conse$uence, an

(F) The actor 1nos that it isa irtually certainconse$uence (R 'ancoc1 O 2han1land(@PQ)- R 6edric1(@PQ)- R .oollin (@PPQ

Varies accordin% to the particul

circumstances" The a

8ommission su%%ested a %ener

de;nition as follos:

A person is rec1less if:

(a) Bnoin% that there is a

ris1 that an eent may

arise from his conduct orthat a circumstance may

e*ist, he ta1es that ris1,

and

(b) 9t is unreasonable for him

to ta1e it hain% re%ard t

the de%ree and nature of

Defendant:

7es a duty of care

&reaches that duty and

creates a ris1 of death"

The breach of duty is so

%ross that it deseres to

be describes as crimina

(R Adoma1o (@PPH))"


16/127

STRICT LIABILITY REVISION NOTES

/e3nition . contrast &it' a!solte lia!ilit#

2trict liability oences do not need mens rea to be established for D to be %uilty"

Actus Reus (oluntary) must be proed hich is ho 2 oences dier fromabsolute liability ones here the actus reus may be committed inoluntarily(arsonneur.in/ar)"

9t is a departure from the fundamental principle that a oluntary act, a %uilty mind

and absence of a alid defence must coincide for D to be %uilty of an oence"

This departure may be seen as un


17/127

CRITICISMS >USTIFICATION

9s it LVLR morally


18/127

or !# necessar# im%licationt'e e$ect of t'e statte

W" The only situation in hich thepresumption can be displaced ishere the statute is concernedith an issue of social concern-

public safety is an issue)" discussion of the de%ree of socialdan%er and rebuttin% thepresumption" S&eet " Parsle#*GK,Lmpress 8ar 8ompany 6ational Riers Authority (@PPQ)Bla9e *GGK,&romley 8 8(FGG)

H" Len here the statute isconcerned ith such an issue, thepresumption stands unless it canbe shon that ma1in% it a strict

liability oence ill lead to thepromotion of standards and laenforcement)Reynolds ' Austinand 2ons td - Lim C'in Ai9*GD,0 8ity of 2aulte 2te Marie(@PSQ)- 2medleys td &reed(@PSW)

SU--ESTIONS FOR REFORM

3arliamentary %uidance on statutory interpretation or ma1e it e*plicitly clear herean oence is one of 2"

8onsistent application of the due dili%ence defence i"e" if D has ta1en all possiblesteps to aoid the oence they ill be innocent"

ACTIVITIES

T'LRL ARL MA6X 8A2L2 T7 D928=22 96 A6 L22AX 76 2TR98T 9A&99TX

8reate a case la %lossary list of 2 cases" 9nclude the folloin%"

8ase name

2ummary of facts

.hat ar%ument (


19/127

=se the reision notes and your case la %lossary to anser the to essay

$uestions belo"

F" L*amine critically the criteria hich the courts hae deeloped for

determinin% hether an oence is one of strict liability"" 2trict iability oences contribute to a safer, cleaner and more e4cient

society and can be


20/127


21/127


22/127

T'e series of Acts test: (2ir >ames 2tephen 8@Pth >ud%e)

'as the / alrea+# com%lete+ a series of acts t'at &ol+ 'a"e !een sccessfl if

not interr%te+

Referred to in &oyle and &oyle (@PQ) .here D!s ere found standin% by a door to hich the

loc1 and one hin%e ere bro1en"

3ro%ress After much confusion""""

2ince the case of 3 4ullefer(@PQS), the courts hae stressed that the ords of the

Criminal Attem%ts Act GJare to be folloed, rather than the tests laid don in pre5

statute cases"

-llefer: D ones *GG, is as decided that the natral meanin(8 of t'e &or+s s'ol+ !e

se+ an+ ol+ case la& s'ol+ not !e trne+ tosaid that all acts until he

into the car and pointed the loade

%un ere merely preparatory, onc

had done that, there as su4cien

eidence of an attempt to leae to


23/127

The 8A put forard a to sta%e test:

@" 'ad the accused moed from plannin% or preparation to e*ecution or

implementation

F" 'ad the accused done an act shoin% that he as actually tryin% to commit the full

oence or had he %ot only as far as %ettin% ready, or puttin% himself in a position, ore$uippin% himself, to do so

R " Tosti *GGK,

D and an accomplice had o*yacetylene e$uipment, (fuel to aid cuttin%) hich they hid in a

hed%e neat to a barn that they planned to brea1 into" They al1ed up to the barn door and

e*amined the loc1 on it" .hen they realised they ere bein% atched, they ran aay" 7n

appeal their conictions for attempted bur%lary ere upheld, as the 8 of A said that there

as eidence that shoed that they had %one beyond the preparatory sta%es and had

actall# trie+ to commit t'e o$enceohn may rely on proocation een if heas proo1ed by Ben rather than Batie (Da%ies, 8earson)" Accordin% to the ' insmith ($organ), eidence of mental impairment is releant to both the %raity ofthe proocation to D and his capacity for self5control: hoeer, this had beendisapproed by the full 3riy 8ouncil in "94 for ersey % Holley (FGGH)" Theposition ould no seem to be as it as under !ampling and $orhall i"e",mental impairment releant to hether D lost his control and the %raity of theproocation to D, but D?s action to be ohn, but some candidates may ar%ue a case for its

application to isa"


46/127

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAU-4TER

/e3nition: An unlaful 1illin% here the defendant does not hae the intention,

either direct or obli$ue, to 1ill or to cause &'"

5a#s of Committin( In"olntar# Mansla('ter

=nlaful act manslau%hter

ross ne%li%ence manslau%hter

Rec1less manslau%hter

UNLA5FUL ACT MANSLAU-4TER

The elements:

D must do an unlaful act

The act must be dan%erous on an ob


47/127

.here a reasonable person ould be aare of the ictim!s frailty and the ris1

of physical harm to him, then D ill be liable (.atson)"

Cases /eat'

6ormal rules of causation applu- the act must be the factual and le%al cause

of death (Dalby)

An interenin% act such as the ictim self5inones)

-ROSS NE-LI-ENCE MANSLAU-4TER

Elements:

The e*istence of a duty of care toards the ictim

A breach of that duty of care hich causes death

ross ne%li%ence oer the ris1 of death hich the


48/127

-ross Ne(li(ence

&eyond a matter of mere compensation and shoed such disre%ard for the

life and safety of others as to amount to a crime (&ateman)

8onduct so bad in all the circumstances as to amount to a criminal act or

omission (Adoma1o)

Ris9 of /eat'

There must be a ris1 of death from D!s conduct, it is not enou%h to sho a ris1 of

bodily in


49/127

a" Throu%h the commission of a criminal act intended by the D to cause

in


50/127

and in less serious cases, most cases ould be coered by 6M as D ould be hard

pressed to deny that he or she as ell aare of the ris1 of his or her conduct

1illin% someone"


51/127

ACTIVITIES:

Raul and 8hristiano are standin% in a $ueue at a bus stop hen they be%inar%uin% ith one another" Raul pushes 8hristiano ho sta%%ers bac1ardsand collides ith Mar%aret, an Q year old lady" Mar%aret falls bac1ards

onto the paement" 2he is in


52/127

'as the medical ne%li%ence bro1en the chain of causation Ar%uable discuss andapplyordan/ Smith/ !heshire to a reasoned conclusion

Discuss hether the medical ne%li%ence has bro1en the chain of causation in allanyof the aboe alternaties Ar%uable discuss and apply ordan/ Smith/ !heshire toa reasoned conclusion notin% that, as a matter of policy, the courts are reluctant to

allo een ne%li%ent medical treatment to brea1 the chain of causation!

-ross ne(li(ent mansla('ter"dama#o/ 0itcheld/ Wac#er/ $isra *Sri%asta%aDiscuss the potential oence of %ross ne%li%ence manslau%hter, discuss and applyto the facts:

9s a duty of care oed to 8hristiano (and Mar%aret) "dama#o/

Donoghue % Ste%enson

'as the duty of care been bro1en Xes, 8hristiano is the ictim of abattery

9s Raul!s conduct so far belo that to be e*pected of a reasonable

person in those circumstances as to amount to a crime Technically yesin one ay as he has committed a crime

9s there a ris1 of death (This is debateable) There as clearly a ery

small ris1 of death and Mar%aret has eentually died but ould a


53/127

Z As aboe, ar%ue to a reasoned conclusion


54/127

MUR/ER REFORM

La& Commission8s Pro%osals

Murder should be diided into F separate oences:

#irst de%ree murder (D intends to 1ill or intends to cause serious harm andas aare that his or her conduct posed a serious ris1 of death)

2econd de%ree murder (here D intended to do serious in


55/127

Practice Essa#

/iscss &'et'er t'e common la& (o"ernin( t'e o$ence of mr+er is

satisfactor# or is in nee+ of reform !# ParliamentA @PQQ

BATTERY: 87MM76 A. &=T 8'ARLD =6DLR 2"P 8>A @PQQ

ASSAULT OCCASIONIN- ACTUAL BO/ILY 4ARM: 2"WS 7A3A @Q@

MALICIOUS 5OUN/IN- OR INFLICTIN- -RIEVOUS BO/ILY 4ARM:2"FG 7A3A

@Q@

5OUN/IN- OR CAUSIN- -RIEVOUS BO/ILY 4ARM 5IT4 INTENT:2"@Q 7A3A@Q@

ABH s.47

Battery Assault

GBH s.18

GBH s.20

NFOs


58/127

EY FACTS TABLES

OFFENCE /EFINITION ACTUS REUS CONSEUENCE

REUIRE/

MEN

A22A=T An act hich causes the

ictim to apprehend the

iniction of immediate,

unlaful force ith either an

intention to cause another to

fear immediate unlaful

personal iolence or

rec1lessness as to hether

such fear is caused

8ausin% V to fearimmediate

unlaful

iolence"

Re$uires an act

but can be silent

telephone calls,

7reland (;


59/127

Burstow (;


60/127

832 8'AR96 2TA6DARD2

CPS Codes Non-Fatal Oen!es

CPS Code

Co""on Assault

grazes; scratches; abrasions; minor bruising; swellings; reddening of the skin; superficial

cuts; or a "black eye".

CPS Code

A!tual #od$ly %ar"

loss or breaking of a tooth or teeth; temporary loss of sensory functions (which may include

loss of consciousness); extensive or multiple bruising; displaced broken nose; minorfractures; minor but not very superficial cuts of a sort probably re!uiring medical

treatment (e.g. stitches); or psychiatric inury which is more than fear.

CPS Code

Gr$e&ous #od$ly %ar"

inury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function; inury which

results in more than minor permanent visible disfigurement; broken or displaced limbs orbones including fractured skull compound fractures broken cheek bone aw ribs etc;

inuries which cause substantial loss of blood usually necessitating a transfusion; andinuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity.

#ounding and $%& entail serious harm but the inury need not be life'threatening nor needit be intended as such.

CPS Code

'oundsn law wounds re!uire a breaking of the continuity of the whole of the outer skin or inner

skin within the cheek or lip. upture of internal blood vessels is excluded. *inor woundsshould not result in a section +, charge.

CPS Code

Se!t$on 18

-he greater mens rea re!uirement in section / means that it should be reserved for the

more serious cases as where there is0

a repeated or planned attack; deliberate selection of a weapon or adaptation of an article to

cause inury such as breaking a glass before an attack; making prior threats; or using an

offensive weapon against or kicking the victim1s head.


61/127

2ote also that the ulterior intent in section / may consist of an intent to resist or preventthe lawful apprehension or detainer of any person and in these cases there must obviously

be evidence of such an intent.

8762L6T A2 A DL#L68L

T'e la& on consent as a +efence to o$ences a(ainst t'e %ersonreco(nises t'at t'e casin( of +eli!erate 'arm ma# sometimes !e

;sti3e+


62/127

prosecuted should a participant e*ceed hat is alloable ithin the rules of that

sport or %ame- 8onsider the factors that ill be ta1en into account hen ma1in%

this determination (the type of sport, the leel at hich it as played, the nature of

the act, the de%ree of force, the e*tent of the ris1 of in


63/127

LIAM N=L2T9762


64/127

PROBLEM UESTION 1 NON FATALS AN/ RELEVANT /EFENCES

.ayne is the captain of the 6orthport =nited football team" Durin% an important

match a%ainst their local rials, .ayne is inoled in a clash of heads in an incident

ith an opposin% player, Andre" .ayne receies a nasty bruise aboe his left eye

and is badly concussed" .ayne insists on continuin% after treatment ith a coldspon%e but is obiously still in a ery da/ed condition" A fe minutes later .ayne


65/127

5a#ne

O$ences:

The in


66/127


67/127


68/127

Perc#

8ould be %uilty of assault a%ainst Tyrone and =na, as this can be committed

by ords alone: 9reland, &ursto" D!s conduct must cause V to fear

immediate unlaful force" May be %uilty of a battery a%ainst Tyrone hittin% him on the head ith an

empty beer can could be a battery, althou%h not assailt, since Tyrone did notsee it comin% and so ould not hae been put in fear of immediate unlafulforce"

May be %uilty of an a%%raated assault a%ainst Tyrone 1noc1in% his tooth

out ould most li1ely amount to A&' under s"WS

May be %uilty of a%%raated assault a%ainst Austin s"@Q oundin% or

causin% serious bodily harm

3ossible defences Ma


69/127


70/127

T'e T'eft Act GJ7 s<

De;nes theft as:

/$ erson is guilty of theft if he !ishonestly aroriates roertybelonging to another with the intention of ermanently !eriving theother of it",

The Act then %oes on in the ne*t ;e sections to %ie some help ith the meanin%of the ords in the de;nition"

Acts Res of T'eft

%aroriates roerty belonging to another"&

There are three elements to this:

@" Appropriation

F" 3roperty

" &elon%in% to another

A%%ro%riation 1 s< D *,

Uan# assm%tion !# a %erson of t'e ri('ts of an o&ner amonts to ana%%ro%riation, and this includes, here he has come by the property (innocentlyor not) ithout stealin% it, any later assumption of a ri%ht to it by 1eepin% or dealin%ith it as oner"E

2o, appropriation is much ider than a pic1poc1et ta1in% a allet fromsomeone!s poc1et"

The thief must do somethin% hich assumes (ta1es oer) one of the oner!s

ri%hts"

A%%ro%riation !# assmin( t'e ri('t to sell

Pit'am an+ 4e'l *GKK,

Facts of t'e case

The defendant had sold furniture belon%in% to another person"

Princi%le of t'e case

This as held to be an appropriation" The oer to sell as an assumption of theri%hts of an oner O the appropriation too1 place at that point" 9t did not matterhether the furniture as remoed from the house or not" Len if the oner asneer depried of the property D had still appropriated it by assumin% the ri%hts ofthe oner to oer the furniture for sale"


71/127

A%%ro%riation !# assmin( t'e o&ner8s ri('t to +estro# %ro%ert#

9f the defendant destroys property belon%in% to another he can be char%ed

ith theft"

Theft can also be char%ed here the defendant does not destroy the other!s

property but thros it aay"

Morris *GJD,

Facts of t'e case

The defendant had sitched the price labels of to items in a supermar1et" 'e hadthen put one of the items, hich no had a loer price on it, into a bas1et andta1en the item to the chec1out, but it had not %one throu%h the chec1out hen heas arrested" 'is coniction for theft as upheld"


ord Ros1ill: Uit is enou%h for the prosecution if they hae proed[the assumptionof any of the ri%hts of the oner of the %oods in $uestion"E

Consent to t'e a%%ro%riation

La&rence *GK,

Facts of t'e case

An 9talian student, ho spo1e ery little Ln%lish arried at Victoria 2tation andshoed an address to arence, a ta*i drier" The


72/127

The 87A $uashed the coniction relyin% on the


73/127

Princi%le of t'e case *4ose of Lor+s,

'7 held that an appropriation had ta1en place O that there as no need foraderse interference ith or usurpation of some ri%ht of the oner" To !e (ilt# oft'eft t'e / nee+ not +o an#t'in( contrar# to t'e o&ner8s &is'esones *GK,

Facts of t'e case

2mith O >ones ent to 2mith!s father!s house in the middle of the ni%ht and too1

to teleision sets ithout the father!s permission or 1noled%e" The father stated

that his son ould not be a trespasser in the house- he had a %eneral permission to

enter"


The 87A upheld their conictions for bur%lary he had %one beyond his %eneral

permission to enter by remoin% the TV!s"

Mens Rea for Br(lar#

There are to parts to the Mens Rea in bur%lary:

Lnterin% as a trespasser- and

The ulterior oence"

#or both (a) and (b) the defendant must 1no or be sub


88/127


89/127

insanity! (s" @ 8riminal 3rocedure (9nsanity) Act @PW), otherise referred to

as the special erdict"

=ntil recently this erdict obli%ed the


90/127

This means that the defendant!s poers of reasonin% must be impaired"

'oeer, if the defendant is capable of reasonin% but has failed to use those

poers then this is not a defect of reason"

R 8lar1e (@PSF)#acts of the case

The defendant ent into a supermar1et and left ithout payin% for three itemshich she had placed in her handba%" 2he as char%ed ith theft but claimed in herdefence that she lac1ed the Mens Rea for theft on the basis of absent5mindednesscaused by diabetes and depression" The trial


91/127

reason of insanity"! As a result of this, the defendant pleaded %uilty to A&'" Thedefendant then appealed"

3rinciple of the case&oth the 87A and '7 con;rmed the coniction" The '7 ruled that the source ofthe disease as irreleant" 9t could be or%anic, as in epilepsy, or functional!, and it

did not matter hether the impairment as permanent or transient andintermittent!, proided that it e*isted at the time the defendant did the act"

Thus acts done durin% an epileptic ;t 0 insanity"


92/127

R 'ennessy (@PQP)Facts of t'e case

The defendant as a diabetic ho had not ta1en his insulin for three days" 'e asseen to %et into a car hich had been reported stolen and drie o" 'e as char%edith ta1in% a motor ehicle ithout consent and driin% hile dis$uali;ed" 'e had

no recollection of driin% the car"


A diabetic, ho falls into a hyper%lycaemic state, must be treated as pleadin%insanity as it as the disease itself (an internal factor) causin% the sei/ure"

R &ur%ess (@PP@)#acts of the case

The defendant and his %irlfriend had been atchin% ideos" They fell asleep and inhis sleep the defendant attac1ed her" There as no eidence of an e*ternal cause

for the sleepal1in% and a doctor at the trial %ae eidence that in this instance itas due to an internal cause: a sleep disorder"

The


93/127

3eople ith diabetes ho %o into a hyper%lycaemic state (hi%h leels of blood su%ar

caused by lac1 of insulin) 0 insanity3eople ith diabetes ho %o into a hypo%lycaemic state (lo leels of blood su%arcaused by insulin) 0 automatism

6ot 1noin% the nature and $uality of the actThere are to ays in hich the defendant may not 1no the nature and $uality ofhis acts"

These are:a) &ecause he is in a state of unconsciousness or impaired consciousness- orb) .hen he is conscious but due to his mental condition he does not understand

or 1no hat he is doin%"

L"%" The defendant cuts a oman!s throat but thin1s he is cuttin% a loaf of bread"The defendant chops o a sleepin% man!s head because it ould be amusin%to see him loo1in% for it hen he a1es up"

7r not 1noin% it as ron%.here the defendant 1nos the nature and $uality of his act he can still use thedefence of insanity if he does not 1no that hat he did as ron%".ron% means le%ally ron% not morally ron%"

R .indle (@PHF)#acts of the case

The defendant!s ife constantly spo1e of committin% suicide" 7ne day the

defendant 1illed her by %iin% her @GG aspirins" 'e %ae himself up to the police andsaid: 9 suppose they ill han% me for this"!

3rinciple of this case'e as suerin% from mental illness, but these ords shoed that he 1ne hat hehad done as le%ally ron%" As a result he could not use the defence of insanityand as found %uilty of murder"

E"alation an+ reform

T'e !r+en of %roof rests &it' t'e +efen+ant

8ritics hae ar%ued that it is unfair that the burden is on the defendant toproe, on the balance of probabilities, that he or she as suerin% frominsanity" They say that this undermines the notion that the defendant isinnocent until proen %uilty by the prosecution"T'e se of a le(al rat'er t'an a me+ical +e3nition3erhaps the ma


94/127

from @QW and fails to ta1e account of the hu%e medical adances that haeoccurred since then"T'e rles are too !roa+The classi;cation of diabetics, epileptics and sleepal1ers as insane hasbeen criticised for su%%estin% that those suerin% from such conditions are a

dan%er to the public, hereas this is far from the truth in the ast ma


95/127

INSANITY EEMPLAR

9nsanity is a %eneral defence to A crimes hereas diminished responsibility is aspecial and partial defence to a char%e of murder 76X"

The DL#L6DA6T must proe that he or she as suerin% from insanity hen he or

she committed the oence" This must be proed on the &AA68L 7#3R7&A&99T9TL2" 8ritics hae ar%ued that this is unfair in that it undermines thenotion that the defendant is innocent until proen %uilty by the prosecution" The&utler 8ommittee and the 8riminal a Reision 8ommittee hae su%%ested that,since it is part of mens rea, the burden of proof should be reersed and placed onthe prosecution rather than the defendant

.hen the D is found to be insane the erdict is not %uilty by reason of insanity!"

=ntil the introduction of the 8riminal 3rocedure Act @PP@, this automatically meantan inde;nite hospital stay and meant that defendants ere particularly reluctant toplead insanity, but no this only applies to murder"

9f the defendant is char%ed ith another crime, the


96/127

=nder this element, the reluctance to accept automatism as a full defence if it couldmean releasin% potentially dan%erous people bac1 into society is in issue" The%eneral rule is that if automatism (acts done by the muscles ithout any control bythe mind) is caused by a disease of the mind! then the M!6a%hten rules apply andthe D ill be found not %uilty by reason of insanity" (9nsane Automatism)" .here theautomatism is caused by an e*ternal factor then the defendant ill be found not

%uilty as none5insane automatism is a complete defence" The $uestion of hetherD!s condition is sane or insane automatism is one of la for the


97/127

not resist pererse ideas" 'e 1ne hat he as doin% as ron% and so couldn!trely on the defence of insanity but could rely on the defence of DR instead" &ut DRonly aailable for a char%e of murder

7ther ealuation points include the fact that the defences are eectiely

established or rebutted by medical e*perts rather than bein% decided upon by


98/127

Automatism

A defence here the defendant does an act hich is not under the control of his

conscious mind"

De;nition of AutomatismUan act done by the muscles ithout any control by the mind, such as a spasm, aree* action or a conulsion- or an act done by a person ho is not conscious ofhat he is doin% such as an act done hilst suerin% from concussion or hilstsleep5al1in%"E&ratty A for 6orthern 9reland (@P)

The To Types of Automatism@" 9nsane automatism here the cause of the automatism is a disease of the

mind ithin the M!6a%hten rules" 9n such a case the defence is insanity andthe erdict is not %uilty by reason of insanity"

F" 6on5insane automatism here the cause is an e*ternal one" .here such adefence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not %uilty"

6on5insane Automatism This is a defence because the Actus Reus done by the defendant is not

oluntary" 9n addition, the defendant does not hae the re$uired Mens Rea for the

oence"

The cause of the automatism must be e*ternal" L"%:

A blo to the head

An attac1 by a sarm of bees

2nee/in%

'ypnotism

The eect of a dru%

'ill &a*ter (@PHQ)#acts of the case

The defendant droe throu%h a stop si%n ithout stoppin% and collided ith anothercar" 'e as char%ed ith dan%erous driin% but ac$uitted by the ma%istrates hoaccepted that he remembered nothin% from some distance before reachin% the stopsi%n"

3rinciple of the case


99/127

The Diisional 8ourt alloed the prosecution!s appeal and remitted the case bac1 tothe ma%istrates ith a direction to conict as there as no eidence to support adefence of automatism"

The court approed the


100/127

R &ailey (@PQ)#acts of the case

The defendant as a diabetic ho had failed to eat enou%h after ta1in% insulin tocontrol the diabetes" 'e became a%%ressie and hit someone oer the head ith aniron bar" The trial


101/127

Lssay Nuestion

9nsane and non5insane automatism are similar defences inolin% mentalabnormality" 9t is ital that the distinction beteen them is fully understood since

they produce ery dierent conse$uences for a defendant ho relies on one or

other of them"!

8ritically consider the truth of the aboe statement">anuary FGG JHG mar1sK

9nto*ication

A defence here the defendant has consumed alcohol, dru%s or other substances"

9nto*ication is a means of puttin% doubt into the minds of the ma%istrates or


102/127

.here the defendant as oluntarily into*icated and failed to form the mens

rea, the defendant is entitled to be ac$uitted if the oence char%ed is one ofspeci;c intent" 9f the oence char%ed is one of basic intent then the


103/127

9noluntary 9nto*ication 9noluntary into*ication coers situations here the defendant did not 1no

he as ta1in% an into*icatin% substance (spi1ed- prescribed dru%s hae anune*pected eect)"

The mere fact that the defendant!s alcoholic drin1 has a stron%er eect than

necessary does not ma1e the into*ication, inoluntary: R Allen (@PQQ)

9f the defendant as inoluntarily into*icated such that the prosecution

cannot proe the mens rea, then the defendant is entitled to an ac$uittal"

9f the defendant as inoluntarily into*icated but did hae the mens rea

hen he committed the oence, he ill be %uilty" The inoluntary into*icationill not proide a defence" This is so een thou%h the defendant ould nothae committed the oence ithout the into*ication loerin% his resistanceto committin% the oence"

R Bin%ston (@PPW)#acts of the case

The defendant as a middle5a%ed businessman" 'e had admittedpaedophilic, homose*ual tendencies, hich he as able to control hilstsober" This presented an opportunity for former business associates of his toblac1mail him"As part of the set5up, both the defendant and a @H5year5old boy ere lured,separately to a at and dru%%ed (dru%s put in their coee)" The boy fellasleep the defendant as inited to abuse him" The defendant did so andas photo%raphed by the blac1mailer"

9n the prosecution!s ie there as eidence that the defendant, despite theeects of the dru%s, intended to touch the boy in circumstances of indecencyand the


104/127

3rinciple of the caseThe 87A $uashed the defendant!s coniction as the defendant had ta1en thedru% because he thou%ht it ould calm him don" (This is the normal eectof alium)" 2o the defendant as not rec1less"

Voluntary 9nto*ication This is here the defendant has chosen to ta1e an into*icatin% substance"

.hether the defendant is %uilty depends upon hether the crime is one of

speci;c or basic intent"

8rimes of speci;c intent 8rimes of basic intent

Murder

.oundin% or causin% &' ith intent

Theft

Robbery

&ur%lary

Manslau%hter

Rape

Malicious oundin%

Assault occasionin% A&'

8ommon assaultVoluntary into*ication and speci;c intent oences

Voluntary into*ication can ne%ate the mens rea for a speci;c intent oence" 9fthe defendant is so into*icated that he has not formed the mens rea for theoence he is not %uilty"

D33 &eard (@PFG)#acts of the case

The defendant had been char%ed ith murder but ar%ued that he as toointo*icated to hae formed the mens rea for murder"

3rinciple of the caseord &ir1enhead stated the rule hich still applies today: F7f he was so drun# that hewas incapable of forming the intent reuired, he could not be con%icted of a crimewhich was committed only if the intent was pro%ed.G

R 2heehan and Moore (@PSH)#acts of the case

The defendant!s ere ery drun1 hen they thre petrol oer a tramp and set ;reto him" They ere too drun1 to hae formed any intent to 1ill or cause &' (the MRfor murder)"


9t as held that because they did not hae the Mens Rea for murder theirinto*ication as a defence to that oence" 'oeer, they ere found %uilty ofmanslau%hter as that is a basic intent oence"

2ee also R 'eard FGGS


105/127

Dutch 8oura%e cases.here the defendant has the necessary mens rea despite his into*icated

state, then he is %uilty of the oence" The into*ication does not proide adefence"

A for 6orthern 9reland alla%her (@P)

#acts of the caseThe defendant decided to 1ill his ife" 'e bou%ht a 1nife to do the 1illin% and also abottle of his1y" 'e dran1 a lar%e amount of the his1y before 1illin% his ife"

3rinciple of the caseThe defendant?s coniction for murder as upheld a drun1en intent is stillan intent"

Dutch 8oura%eU9f a man, hilst sane and sober, forms an intention to 1ill and ma1es preparationfor it 1noin% it is a ron% thin% to do, and then %ets himself drun1 so as to %ie

himself Dutch coura%e to do the 1illin%, and hilst drun1 carries out his intention, hecannot rely on this self5induced drun1enness as a defence to murder, not een asreducin% it to manslau%hter" 'e cannot say he %ot himself into such a stupid statethat he as incapable of an intent to 1ill[The ic1edness of his mind before he %otdrun1 is enou%h to condemn him, coupled ith the act hich he intended to do anddid do"E

3er ord Dennin% in alla%her

Voluntary into*ication and basic intent oences .here the oence char%ed is one of basic intent then into*ication is not a

defence" This is because oluntarily %ettin% into*icated is considered a rec1less course

of conduct and rec1lessness is enou%h to constitute the necessary mens reafor crimes of basic intent"

D33 Ma


106/127

9f the defendant is mista1en about a 1ey fact because he is drun1, then it

depends on hat the mista1e as about as to hether he has a defence ornot"

.here the mista1e is about somethin% hich means that the defendant did

not hae the mens rea for the oence then for a speci;c intent oence hehas a defence"

'oeer, here the oence is one of basic intent then the defendant has not

%ot a defence"

R ipman (@PSG)#acts of the case

The defendant and his %irlfriend had ta1en the dru% 2D before fallin% asleep at herat" 2D causes hallucinations" The defendant thou%ht that he as at the centre ofthe earth and bein% attac1ed by sna1es" .hen he ao1e he found his %irlfriend asdead" 'e had stran%led her and stued a sheet into her mouth beliein% she as asna1e attac1in% him" 'is coniction for manslau%hter as upheld"3rinciple of the case

The defendant did not hae the speci;c intention for murder as he thou%ht he as1illin% a sna1e" 'oeer, he as %uilty of manslau%hter because he had oluntarilyta1en the dru% 2D" This as a rec1less course of conduct and so he as %uilty ofmanslau%hter"

R 7!rady (@PQS)#acts of the case

The defendant and the ictim, ho as a friend, had been drin1in% heaily- theyfell asleep in the defendant!s at" The defendant claimed that he ao1e to ;ndthe ictim hittin% him" The defendant pic1ed up a %lass ashtray and hit theictim ith it, the defendant then ent bac1 to sleep" .hen he o1e he foundthat the ictim as dead" The defendant as char%ed ith murder but asconicted of manslau%hter"

3rinciple of the caseThis as upheld by the 87A"

R 'atton (FGGH)

#acts of the caseThe defendant had drun1 oer FG pints of beer" 'e and the ictim (another man)ent bac1 to the defendant!s at" 9n the mornin% the defendant claimed he foundthe ictim dead from in


107/127

The 87A held that a drun1en mista1e about the amount of force re$uired in self5defence as not a defence"

To celebrate the end of A leels, =na and 6atasha ent out to a ni%ht club, here

they ere ustice and 9mmi%ration ActFGGQ s"S9nto*icated mista1e 8riminal >ustice and 9mmi%ration Act FGGQ s"S

A%%lication

8edro

O$ences:

May be %uilty of a technical assault on the other people nearby (intentionally orrec1lessly causin% them to apprehend immediate unlaful personal iolence: 2agan% $8!, approed by ' in Sa%age and 8armenter. .ords alone can constituteassault: 7reland.


108/127

The slap to =na is a battery, hich may be char%ed as common assault under 8>A@PQQ, s"P, or as assault occasionin% actual bodily harm under 7A3A @Q@, s"WS, ifhurt or in


109/127

Defence of reasonable force in defence of oneself or another, or to preentcommission of a crime: 8riminal >ustice and 9mmi%ration Act FGGQ

Althou%h mista1en belief caused throu%h the defendant!s oluntary into*icationcannot %ie a defence of self defence, defence of another or preention of crime

(s"S(H)), Tyrone is inoluntarily into*icated and so may be able to rely on thisdefence"

9f D mista1enly beliees it is necessary to use force in the circumstances, hismista1e as to the circumstances need only be %enuine and not necessarilyreasonable 5 Williams (4ladstone), Scarlett O s"S() of the 8>9A FGGQ" Tyrone ou%htto be ac$uitted if the


110/127

3 % Jalderrama Jega (;


111/127

7pportunities to escape 3olice protection

3 % 4ill ;


112/127

they must hae 1non that pressure mi%ht be out on him to commit an

oence

they must hae been an actie member of the %an% hen pressure as puton him

'asan FGGH#acts of the case

The defendant as a drier and minder for a prostitute" 'e had been threatened byher boyfriend (a iolent %an%sterdru% dealer) to carry out a bur%lary" The defendantcommitted an armed bur%lary and at trial pleaded duress" 'e as conicted"

The 8ourt of Appeal $uashed his conicted but it as re5instated by the 'ouse ofords


The House of Lords stated that the defence of duress is denied when the

defendant foresaw (or should have foreseen) the risk of being subjected to ANY

compulsion b threats of violence!

8onse$uently, the defendant no lon%er has to Mustill

Resistin% the threats

The threats made must be one that the ordinary man ould not hae resisted"

raham @PQF deeloped a to part test

The ;rst $uestion (sub


113/127

had been said or done, he had %ood cause to fear that if he did not act asdirected he ould suer death or be caused serious physical in


114/127

3 % Howe (;


115/127

R .iller @PQ#acts of the case'e droe his car don a narro alley and as surrounded by a %an% of youthsthreatenin% iolence" To %et aay from them he droe on the paement and thenreported the incident to the police" 'e as conicted of rec1less driin%

3rinciple of the case87A said that the


116/127

3rinciple of the caseDuress of circumstances as alloed hoeer the court %ae further instruction asto hen the defence ould be alloed"""""["";rst, Ln%lish la does, in e*treme circumstances, reco%nise a defence ofnecessity" Most commonly this defence arises as duress, that is pressure on theaccused!s ill from the ron%ful threats or iolence of another" L$ually hoeer it

can arise from other ob


117/127

6ecessity6ecessity is here the circumstances the defendant is in forces them to act in orderto preent a %reater eil" There are similarities beteen the defence of necessityand the defence of duress of circumstances" 'oeer, the traditional ie is thatthere is no defence of necessity"

R Dudley and 2tephens @QQW#acts of the case

#olloin% a storm, D and 2 ere left helplessly driftin% in an open boat oer @,GGGmiles from land alon% ith another and the ship!s cabin boy a%ed @S years" Theoccupants had been 1ept alie lar%ely due to the resourcefulness of D, the ship!scaptain, but after seen days ithout food and ;e ithout ater, D and 2 1illed thecabin boy, ho as already delirious and near to death" The men feared that theyould all die soon ithout food and ater" The three suriors ate his esh anddran1 his blood for four days, hereupon they ere rescued by a passin% ship" Theyere char%ed ith the murder of the boy"


'oeer, in

Re A (8on


118/127

A hospital applied for a declaration that it could lafully perform an operation toseparate to conodie and Mary" 9f no operation as performed bothtins ould die ithin three to si* months" 9f an operation as performed, Maryould ineitably die ithin a fe minutes but >odie ould be able to lie a relatielynormal and orthhile life"

3rinciple of the caseThe maames 2tephen, > &roo1e stated that [""there are three necessaryre$uirements for the application of the doctrine of necessity:

*i, t'e act is nee+e+ to a"oi+ ine"ita!le an+ irre%ara!le e"il0*ii, no more s'ol+ !e +one t'an is reasona!l# necessar# for t'e %r%ose

to !e ac'ie"e+0*iii, t'e e"il inicte+ mst not !e +is%ro%ortionate to t'e e"il a"oi+e+odie must be preferred to the conictin% interests of Mary, 9consider that all three of these re$uirements are satis;ed in this case"

6ecessity The debate 3lease note the additional cases used here

@" 6ecessity is here a person commits an oence to aoid a %reater eil toeither themseles or others arisin% out of the circumstances

9n these circumstances the conduct of the accused ould be lafulbecause it is


119/127

necessity

9n Re # @PPG ord o stated that the ?common la principle of necessitycould


120/127

3reention of crime s(@) 8riminal a Act @PS)

F" person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the

pre%ention of crime, or e6ecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of o6enders or

suspected o6enders or of persons unlawfully at large.G

The 8riminal >ustice and 9mmi%ration Act FGGQ, s S proides Uclari;cationE of thela of self defence"

The section does not create a ne defence but does see1 to clarify the

e*istin% common la defence and that under s of the 8riminal a Act@PS

The section does nothin% more than reiterate the common la stated aboe:That bein% that the defendant is entitled to use such force as is ob


121/127

=se of force

Pse of any force is not ustied if it was not necessaryQ 'he test is was it necessary

as the defendant saw the circumstances to beQ 3emember once the defence

has raised this particular defence it is for the prosecution to pro%e that the use

of force was unnecessaryQ

3 % Williams ;


122/127


123/127

to use force to defend himself from attac1 or threatened attac1" 9n this respect theD must be


124/127

ReformThe all or nothin% position ith re%ards to this defence has led to criticism"

Australian courts hae in the past (not no) said that a ;ndin% of e*cessie force

should lead to a partial defence"

The 8riminal a Reision 8ommittee stated that a ;ndin% of e*cessie force shouldlead to a partial defence"

The Draft 8riminal 8ode also stated that a ;ndin% of e*cessie force should lead toa partial defence"

After 8le%% @PPH a reie too1 place that found that in a fe cases a ;ndin% ofe*cessie force leadin% to a partial defence ould hae been helpful" 'oeer, thisreport concluded that it ould be di4cult to chan%e the la in this area ithout afull reie of the la on murder"

This reie has no ta1en place and it also recommends a ;ndin% of e*cessieforce should lead to a partial defence" 'oeer, the defence ould come under arede;ned defence of proocation"

Mista1e

A defence here the defendant ma1es a mista1e about a fact

Mista1e To be a defence a mista1e must be a mista1e about a fact"

The mista1e must hae the eect that if the facts had been as the defendant

belieed them to be, it ould mean either:

@" There as no mens rea for the oence

e"%" 9f A pic1s up a coat from a stand as he is leain% a restaurant in themista1en belief that it is his on coat, he does not hae the Mens Rea re$uiredfor theft as he is not dishonest"

F" The defendant ould hae been able to rely on another defence

e"%" 9f &, in the mista1en belief that the ictim is pointin% a %un at him, thros astone at the ictim and 1noc1s him out, & can plead he should be


125/127

#acts of the caseThe defendant, ho as a senior o4cer in the RA#, inited three


126/127

a crime of personal %iolence because the belief negates the intent to actunlawfully.G

Drun1en Mista1e 9f the defendant is mista1en about a 1ey fact because he is drun1, then it

depends on hat the mista1e as about as to hether he has a defence or

not"

.here the mista1e is about somethin% hich means that the defendant did

not hae the Mens Rea for the oence then for a speci;c intent oence hehas a defence"

'oeer, here the oence is one of basic intent then the defendant has not

%ot a defence"

R ipman (@PSG)#acts of the case

The defendant and his %irlfriend had ta1en the dru% 2D before fallin% asleep at herat" 2D causes hallucinations" The defendant thou%ht that he as at the centre ofthe earth and bein% attac1ed by sna1es" .hen he ao1e he found his %irlfriend asdead" 'e had stran%led her and stued a sheet into her mouth beliein% she as asna1e attac1in% him" 'is coniction for manslau%hter as upheld"

3rinciple of the caseThe defendant did not hae the speci;c intention for murder as he thou%ht he as1illin% a sna1e" 'oeer, he as %uilty of manslau%hter because he had oluntarilyta1en the dru% 2D" This as a rec1less course of conduct and so he as %uilty ofmanslau%hter"R 7!rady (@PQS)#acts of the case

The defendant and the ictim, ho as a friend, had been drin1in% heaily- they fellasleep in the defendant!s at" The defendant claimed that he ao1e to ;nd theictim hittin% him" The defendant pic1ed up a %lass ashtray and hit the ictim ithit, the defendant then ent bac1 to sleep" .hen he o1e he found that the ictimas dead" The defendant as char%ed ith murder but as conicted ofmanslau%hter"

3rinciple of the caseThis as upheld by the 87A"

R 'atton (FGGH)

#acts of the caseThe defendant had drun1 oer FG pints of beer" 'e and the ictim (another man)ent bac1 to the defendant!s at" 9n the mornin% the defendant claimed he foundthe ictim dead from in


127/127

The 87A held that a drun1en mista1e about the amount of force re$uired in self5defence as not a defence"

Mista1es of a9t is no defence for the defendant ho causes the actus reus of an oence ith the

mens rea to say that he did not 1no the actus reus as an oence, i%norance ofthe la bein% no e*cuse"

R Lsop (@Q)The defendant, from 9ra$, as conicted of bu%%ery" 9t as le%al in 9ra$ and thedefendant assumed it as laful in Ln%land" 'is i%norance of the Ln%lish la asno defence"

criminal law revision booklet

Documents