February 1st, 2021

Siham El Mabruok

Chapter 6 Summary

One of the main focuses of chapter 6 is on defences, the chapter describes that when
someone is accused of committing a crime there are three main strategies the council can use to
raise a reasonable doubt. These strategies are; alibis, justification defences and excuse defences.
An alibi is a strategy that focuses on witnesses or other forms of evidence that showcase that the
defendant could not have been able to commit the crime they are accused of. The most
commonly known example of an alibi defence is the accused claiming they were not near the
premise when the crime was committed. A challenge that occurs with an alibi defence is whether
or not the story and location are believed by the jury, one either has a solid alibi or does not.
There are 2 different kinds of alibis described in this chapter, an adequate alibi and a timely alibi.
An adequate alibi ensures the police are able to verify the validity of someone's alibi if they are
provided with sufficient details. An alibi that is disclosed to authorities well before a trial takes
place is considered a timely alibi.

Justification defence is a strategy that is used when the accused admits to committing the
time under justifiable circumstances. Examples of a justifiable defence would be self-defence/
defence of others, consent, duress, provocation, entrapment and necessity. Self-defence is
justifiable when the individual’s life or another person’s life is in danger. Consent of assault, this
strategy is used to try and argue that the victim was willingly part of the offence committed.
Duress focuses on the accused claiming their actions were due to an active response to being
threatened, entrapment focuses on government officials luring the accused of committing a crime
they would not have initially committed.

Lastly, excuse defence is a strategy that is based on the notion that one's criminal conduct
can be excused if there is no intent to harm. There are three main types of excuse defences;
mental disorder, automatism and age. Automatism is particularly one defence that I have always
found very fascinating, the accused commits a crime involuntarily due to the accused being in a
state of impaired consciousness lacking the intent of consciously committing the crime as they
had no physical control of their actions. One case I learned about in high school was R. V. Parks.
The defendant killed one and seriously injured his in-laws while they were asleep. Parks used the
defence of automatism as evidence was presented that he was sleepwalking during the entire
incident. Reading the R. V. Stone case in the textbook reminded me of this case.