UNIVERSITY

OF THE WEST INDIES

CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

WORKSHEET 5: GENERAL DEFENCES I

“The distinction between the treatment and the punishment of child ‘offenders’
has popular and political overtones, a fact which shows that we have been
discussing not so much a legal as a social problem, with a dash of politics
thrown in, and emphasises that it should be within the exclusive remit of
Parliament.”
------ C v DPP [1996] 1 AC 1

1. Learning Objectives

Attending this lecture, independently studying the cases and material, and attending
tutorial should help you to have a basic understanding of the general defences of infancy,
diminished responsibility, insanity, automatism and intoxication. You should be able to:

• Articulate the common law and Commonwealth Caribbean statutory position

with respect to infancy
• Explain the elements of diminished responsibility
• Explain the difference between insanity and automatism
• Explain the conceptual difficulties of the insanity defence
• Explain the basic rules of intoxication
• Discuss the conceptual difficulty of the intoxication defence
• Explain the difference between specific intent and basic intent crimes

2. Lecture Outline

A. Introduction

Why is the distinction between excuse and justification artificial?

1|Page
 UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

What is a better way to think about defences?

B. Infancy

What is the underlying assumption of infancy?

What is stare decisis?

Is stare decisis an appropriate feature of our judicial system? Why or why not?

2|Page
 UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

What is the common law position with respect to infancy?

What is the Commonwealth Caribbean Position with respect to infancy?

Anguilla Grenada

Antigua and Barbuda Guyana

Bahamas Jamaica

Barbados Montserrat

Belize St. Kitts and Nevis

Bermuda St. Lucia

British Virgin Islands St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Cayman Islands Trinidad and Tobago

Dominica Turks and Caicos Islands

Case Law:
Walters v Lunt [1951] 2 All E.R. 645
C v DPP [1996] 1 A.C. 1

C. Diminished Responsibility
How is diminished responsibility defined?

3|Page
 UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

What are the elements of diminished responsibility?

(1)

(2)

(3)

Why do we include the doctrine of diminished responsibility in our criminal law?

Who has the burden of proof with respect to diminished responsibility?

Case Law:
Walton v R [1977] 3 W.L.R. 902

4|Page
 UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

D. Insanity and Automatism

How is insanity used as a defence in the Caribbean?

Who has the burden of proof with respect to insanity?

What are the elements of insanity?

(1)

(2)

(3)

5|Page
 UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

What are the problems with the insanity defence?

What is automatism?

What is the difference between insanity and automatism?

Case Law:
M’Naghten Case [1843] 10 C.I. and F. 200
R v Sullivan [1984] A.C.156
R v Kemp [1957] 1 Q.B. 399
R v Windle [1952] 2 Q.B. 826
R v Burgess [1991] 2 Q.B. 92
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1963] A.C. 411
R v Quick and Paddison [1973] Q.B. 910
Hennessy [1989] 2 All E.R. 9
Moses v Archer [1985] W.I.R. 349
6|Page
 UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

R v Ramroop [1972] 20 W.I.R. 532

Burgess [1991] 2 Q.B. 92
Broome v Perkins [1987] 85 Cr. App. Rep 321

E. Intoxication
How is intoxication defined?

What are the basic rules of intoxication?

(1)

(2)

(3)

What is the major problem with the intoxication defence?

7|Page
 UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
CAVE HILL CAMPUS
CRIMINAL LAW I (LAW1110)

What are basic intent crimes?

What are specific intent crimes?

Case Law:
DPP v Beard [1920] A.C. 479
R v Kingston [1994] 3 W.L.R. 519
Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] A.C. 349
DPP v Majewski [1977] A.C. 443
R v Richardson and Irwin [1999] Crim LR 494 CA
R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152 CA

3. Things to think about

Who should we treat like an adult – the nine year old with the mental age and maturity of a
fifteen year old, or a fifteen year old with the mental age and maturity of a nine year old?

Does Lord Denning’s dictum in Bratty that “any mental disorder which has manifested itself
in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind,” accord with the
internal/external distinction of later cases?

Does it make sense to treat cases of hypoglycemia differently from cases of hyperglycemia?

Should we alter the law with respect to intoxication?

8|Page