DEFENSES:

Qs. Summary of facts: We are aware of the fact that, ..

Actus Reus of Crime conducted:
Mens rea of Crime included: … However, the defense may raise the evidence of automatism where the
defense is the argument that the defendant committed the crime unintentionally due to physiological or
environmental factors for this reliance can be placed of the case of Hill V Baxter in which the courts
stated that if there is loss of control over one’s conduct due to an external factor, it may give rise to the
defense of automatism however in the case of Bratty the courts stated that those involuntary facts which
are done by the muscles without control of the mind do not give rise to criminal liability. Hence, in our
case, …
However, if there are external factors which triggered the disease of mind and does involuntary act, the
defense for automatism is available for defendant as seen in the case of R V T, the defendant was raped
due to which she suffered from depression due to the depression she committed theft, the courts held that
the disease due to which the girl committed theft was triggered by an external factor hence only the
defense of automatism was available. Hence, relying on this case fact, in our case, …
However, Lawton LJ made this clear when hearing the appeal: ‘A self induced incapacity will not
excuse... nor will one which could reasonably have been foreseen’ which means that the defense cannot
be relied upon if the defendant was at fault in inducing the condition. Hence, in accordance with this
statement, we can say that in our case, …
Automatism:
STRICT LIABILITY- TRAFFIC OFFENCES:
Burns V Bidder: The offense of failing to give a pedestrian precedence at a crossing was brought against
a driver. His argument was that his action was unintentional because his brakes had failed. The court
ruled that the driver was entitled to an acquittal if this had occurred without the driver's involvement, such
as because the defect was not the result of poor maintenance.
Broome V Perkins and AG Ref No. 2 1992: The defendants was accused of driving dangerously when
their mind was not fully conscious due to circumstances beyond their control, such as hypoglycemia or a
trance-like state brought on by the defendant's focused attention to the lines that separate the motorway
carriageways. Their defense of automatism was failed on the ground that this defense was accessible just
where there was a total loss of conscious control.
INTOXICATION:
Summary of facts: We are aware of the fact that ..
Actus Reus of Crime:
Mens Rea: … However, the defense may raise the evidence of intoxication and the reliance for this will
be placed on Majewski Case where the test of voluntary intoxication was set out in which the courts have
stated the in intoxication is voluntary if the intoxication by an intoxicant which is taken otherwise than for
medical purpose and the person taking it knew or ought to have known that it was an intoxicant.

- voluntary : we are aware of the fact that.. Hence, since we can see that the intoxication is
voluntary we shall next determine the level of awareness (black out or no black out)
 - - Black out: Since we note that there was no aareness to the defendant that the act was being
done, we can place our reliance on the case of Lipman where (insert case facts) and similar to this
case, we can see in the case of DPP V Beard that intoxication which is voluntary ca negate the
Mens rea for murder. However, voluntary intoxication can only negate the mensrea of those
crime where it is necessary to prove specific intent hence, the defendant will be held liable for
those crimes which have basic intent.
- R v Taj: The defendant's psychosis caused him to mistakenly believe that V was a terrorist who
was about to kill him because of his long-term alcohol abuse. Even though the defendant was not
under the influence of alcohol at the time, the Court of Appeal decided that s.76(4)(b) of the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, is applied. His mistaken belief was instigated by a
psychosis brought about by liquor misuse thus it was attributable to voluntary intoxication.
- No black out: Liable.
- Involuntary: we are aware of the fact that.. Hence, since we can see that the intoxication is
voluntary we shall next determine the level of awareness (black out or no black out) - Black out:
Since we note that there was no aareness to the defendant that the act was being done, we can
place our reliance on the case of Hardie where he D took valium for calmness but became
aggressive due to side effect and burnt girlfriend’s closest and since he did not know the side
effects therefore he was not held liable and the intoxication was considered to be involuntary.
Hence, with reference to this case fact,…
- However, even if the intoxication is involuntary but the defendant was not black out and had
some idea what he was doing, he will be liable for that crime.
- Any type of intoxication which is taken or given to take courage to commit a crime cannot negate
the Mens rea since the intention was always there to commit that crime and for this, reliance can
be placed on the case of Gallaghar in which the D got intoxicated to get the courage to kill his
wife. Hence, in our case, ..
Self Defense
Summary of fact:
Ar and Mr:
The defense can raise the evidence of self defense, mentioned under Section 3 of the Criminal Act, which
according to Section 76 of the Criminal and Immigration Act, 2008, can be used for private or public self
defense but it is only available for those crime which involve the use of unlawful force. However, to
evidential burden to prove self defense is with the prosecution and the legal burden is with the defense.
For the evidence of self defense to be valid, a few needs are to be met. The first need is that the courts
determine the subjective threat where mistaken belief is also considered but the mistake has to be
reasonable (Williams Case). Based on the subjective threat, the courts allow the use of reasonable force as
seen in the case of Beckford, Owin and R.Palmer where courts stated that force used must be reasonable
I.e proportionate to threat which is judged objectively. In our case, …
However, according to Section 76 (b) CTT Act, threshold for reasonable force in relation to householders
is higher as the words used in this regard are that the force should not be grossly disproportionate and this
was seen in the case of R V Ray, however, the courts stated that hat despite a common belief to the
contrary, one is not at liberty to shoot dead a burglar wandering around one’s house if one does
not fear for one’s own life on the basis of the facts that this wuld be considered grossly
disproportionate. Also, in the case of R V Demario Williams where a youth was killed in the course of
trying to ‘recover’ property that had been stolen from him, the courts the reasonable force will be justified
in order to prevent robbery or theft but can be used to recover property once the robbery and theft was
completed.

- However, for preemptive strike the defense for self defense is available as according to the case
of AG Ref No. 2 where the defendant was a shopkeeper. His shop was in the centre of extreme
riots which were taking place. On the night of the 11th/12th July 1981, £600 worth of damage
was done to his shop and £400 worth of his goods were stolen. After this attack he remained in
his shop without sleep and in fear of further attack from 1.30 a.m. until the morning of 14th July.
He was in fear that he and his property might be the subject of further attack. He made 10 petrol
bombs to protect himself in case he was subject to further attacks. He was charged with offences
under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883. He raised the defense of self defense and it
was passed.
- According to the case of Owins, the courts determined that when considering reasonable force,
the level of stress in the situation should also be considered.
- However, defense can be used even if the attack is provoked as seen in the case of Rashford Case.

NECESSITY:
Summary of fact:
Ar and Mr:
The defense can raise the evidence of necessity which can be used if a crime is committed due to
preventation of a bigger evil, for someone else’s benefit and there is a justified reason I.e doing the crime
was the only way then the defense of necessity will pass as per the case of Perka V Queen and in the case
of Re A courts gave 3 points which have to be proved for the defense to succeed where the first point is
that act is needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil, no more should be then what is responsibly
necessary for the purpose to be achieved and the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil
avoided.. (write down relevant case facts) In our case,…
DURESS:
threat
Summary of fact:
Ar and Mr:
The defense can raise the evidence of duress seen in the case of of AG V Whelan where the courts stated
that if there is threat of life, which over bears ordinary power of human resistance then any criminal act
under such act would be excused by virtue of this defense hence, Lord Bingham set our some rules in the
Hasan Case which are needed to be proven for this defense to be passed which are to prove that the threat
is of death, serious injury or rape (Re A (RJ)), the threat is given to defendant or someone close to
defendant and this was widely defined which includes anyone who an objective person feels responsible
for on the basis of humanity (Shayler and Pommel Case) , the defendant should show reasonable courage
which is judged objectively, there is a link between threat and crime, there is no evasive action, defendant
has put himself in such a position and this defense is not being used for murder, attempted murder or
treason. Similar example of duress of threat was seen in the case of , … (Write down relevant cases)
Circumstance: All points needed to be met except for no. 2.