This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Examples: Blackout Sudden Blinding Pain Vehicle suffered from failure D should not have any control whatsoever AG Ref(No. 2 Art 1992) 1993 Quick: Even if some control, he can have the defense.
D, a nurse, assaulted a patient. He was a diabetic, had taken insulin and not eaten sufficient food. He drank whisky and rum he could not remember the assault. He pleaded automatism. Held: D was suffering from automatism, which is a mental abnormality caused by an external factor. He was not suffering from insanity caused by hypoglycaemia (low sugar in the blood) by taking insulin prescribed by his doctor. [Distinguished from hyperglycaemia high blood sugar occurring naturally, which would be insanity] Lawton LJ: 'a self-induced incapacity will not excuse ... nor will one which could have been reasonably foreseen as a result of either doing or omitting to do something, for example, taking alcohol against medical advice after using certain prescribed drugs or failing to have regular meals while taking insulin.' Insane Automatism: Resulting from a disease of the mind When D raises such defense, the burden to prove it is on him. It is rarely used by a defendant (there should be antecedents, reference to God, fortune teller, etc) but frequently raised by the prosecution in response in the defense of sane automatism. M Naghten (McNaughton) Rule: For the defense to succeed, it must be proved that D was suffering a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind, so as nt to know the nature and quality of his act, or if he did know, then not to know that it was wrong. Sane automatism External Factors Hypoglycaemia(Too much insulin, blow to the head, etc) Insane Automatism Hyperglycaemia(diabetes; takes no or insufficient insulin) If the defense is successful, defendant will be found not guilty by reason of insanity ( S1 Criminal Procedure Insanity Act) and by virtue of the Criminal Procedure and Unfitness to Plead Act, the court may make 1)a hospital order with or without a restriction as to discharge a guardianship order, 2)a supervision and treatment order, 3)or an order of absolute discharge
Automatism cannot be self-induced someone should take the medicines as prescribed, it becoming a complete defense.
Difference between Duress and Duress of circumstances Duress of Circumstances: Case Willer: [General Defences - duress of circumstances -necessity - escape from gang]
D drove recklessly at about 10 mph through a pedestrian precinct to escape from a gang threatening violence to him and his passengers. Held: Duress should in any case have been left to the jury. This was not the usual sort of duress - the gang had not told D to drive on the pavement - but duress of circumstances could be used even where necessity could not. [Necessity if it ever had existed - has been largely replaced by the new defence of "duress of circumstances". This case was the first recognition as such] Not guilty
Case Martin: [General Defences - duress of circumstances -necessity] Disqualified driver drove stepson to work (had overslept) fearing he would lose his job that would cause wife to commit suicide. Held: "duress of circumstances" should have been considered as a defence. Not guilty Case Hicks: In DPP v Hicks, the respondent was charged with driving with analcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit. At trial, heclaimed that his 19 month old baby was very sick and that he had beendriving to an all-nigh chemist in order to obtain some medicine. Therespondent said he did not have access to a telephone and thereforecould not have called for a doctor and he did not wish to disturb theneighbours because of the lateness of the hour. His girlfriend gaveevidence, stating that the child¶s condition was bad but she did notthink it was sufficiently bad to warrant taking the child to hospital. The justices accepted his defence and acquitted him. The prosecutionappealed by way of case stated. The appeal was allowed. TheDivisional Court held that there was no basis on which the defencecould be found to be established on the facts. The defence was onlyavailable, first, if the driving was done to avoid consequences thatcould not otherwise have been avoided; secondly, if those consequenceswere inevitable and involved serious harm whether to the respondent orto some other person that he was bound to protect; thirdly, if therespondent did not more than was reasonably necessary to avoid theharm; and fourthly, if the danger of driving a motor vehicle withexcess alcohol in his system was not disproportionate to the harm thathe sought to avoid.
Duress : AR MR But he was compelled to act as he did because of threats made by another
Limit the defense:
1. Not for murder, attempted murder or gbh 2. Criminals 3. Threats to kill,gbh,rape,etc
Hasan (R v Z (2003) (2005) HL Lord Binghan
Criminal 03.05.11 Hasan : In R v Hasan (formerly R v Z (2003) (2005) UKHL 22 the defendant was the driver for a group that organised prostitution
and had connections with a second organisation of violent drug dealers. He was charged with burglary in circumstances where he and his family had been threatened, and he had been accompanied to the scene of the crime by an armed man.
Necessity(only Doctors can choose): Dudley & Stephens: 4 in a lifeboat (choice of two devils)
The defendants were subject to terrible temptation and sufferings that may break down the bodily power of the strongest man and try his conscience, but nevertheless the defendants put a weak, innocent boy to death in order to preserve their own lives. They denied the boy any possible chance of survival. The record shows that the defendants were rescued four days after the killing of the boy, but they were not to know that they would not be rescued within hours or the next day, giving all four a decent chance to survive. If they were rescued the next day, the killing would have been unnecessary and profitless. The counsel for the defendants urges that they killed out of necessity; however, necessity of a private nature pertains to selfdefense, which allows a man to take another's life in his own defense. Parker was not a threat to the defendants' lives; in fact, he was weak and could not offer any resistance. While it may have been necessary to kill Parker for their own survival, it is not an excusable or justifiable killing. This would mean that if a man was poor and without clothes, he would be permitted to steal another man's money and clothes in order to save himself. The only justifiable homicide of a private nature is the defense against the force of a man's person, house, or goods. This necessity must be inevitable. While the court in this case did not deem the acts of the defendants devilish, they still constitute murder.
Partial Defences: Murder ± Reduced to manslaughter. (Judge¶s discretion) 1. Loss of self-control. SS 54 & 55 Coroners & Justice Act 2009 Was person provoked(loss of self-control) would a reasonable person reacted the same way gender and age is taken into consideration 2. Diminished Responsibility 3. Infanticide 4. Suicide Pact