General Defences

1. Intoxication (involuntary – full defence to any offence)

 R v Kingston – Disinhibitation rule, has the alcohol allowed feeling that were hidden to bubble to the surface, if
so defence will fail
 R v Allen – if you drink alcohol but don’t know the strength you have the defence of voluntary intox
 R v Lipman – The law makes no distinction between drink and drugs

2. Intoxication (voluntary – partial defence to some offences)

 R v Majewski – Specific offences can be lowered to the basic intent offence, but basic intent offenses cant use
voluntary intox as a defence as they were reckless as to become drunk
 Ag v Gallegher – if you try to gain Dutch courage by drinking you cant use this defence

3. Self defence (found under common law; defence of self and defence of another, and found under the criminal law
act 1967 as the prevention of crime)
 R v Palmer – Lord Morris ‘D need not weigh up the nicety or exact measure of his response’ provided he acted
honestly and instinctively, will provide evident of D acting reasonably.
 R v Bird – D need not try to retreat
 AG ref ³ - a pre-emptive strike may still have a defence in self-defence (as seen in R v Gerard)
 R v Beckford – if you use self defence by mistake it doesn’t prevent you from having a defence in self defence
 R v Martin – If D didn’t behave reasonably

4. Consent
 AG ref 6 – no defence if injury is at or above s47 ABH
 R v Brown – only exception to rule at AG ref 6 is for public policy
 R v Jones – Rough and undisciplined play is an exception as its not the job of the law to interfere with play
even if rough
 R v Wilson - Tattoos and piercings constitute an exception as in the public interests.
 R v Billinghurst – When you join a sports team there is an assumption of consent above s47 (regulated
sports) however it doesn’t condone off the ball incidents

5. Insanity - M’naughten test

Defect of reason
 R v Clarke - Doesn’t included absentmindedness, you must be deprived of the power to reason not just fail to use it
Disease of the mind
 R v Hennessy – internal factors do constitute insanity
 R v Quick – external factor doesn’t constitute insanity but automatism
D doesn’t know the nature of quality of his act or what he was doing wrong
 R v Windle