Criminal Law Lecture V:

Criminal Responsibility –
General Defences (Part 1)
By Anika Gray
 Two brothers, Rannie and Ernie Williams,
lived in St Elizabeth. One day they had a
disagreement over damage done to a
motor vehicle. During the argument,
Rannie got infuriated and began to
destroy Ernie's agricultural produce. Ernie
ran into a storeroom when Rannie
Scenario threatened him with a cutlass. In the
storeroom he observed Rannie
threatening to kill their father. He rushed
from the storeroom and stabbed Rannie
in the back to protect his father.
Ernie is charged for wounding with intent.
Would he have a defence?
 Elements of Criminal Responsibility
“ Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit
Rea”

Mens Lack of
Actus Criminal
Rea Valid
Reus Liability
Defence
 I did not know what I did the act,
I was doing (lack of knew I was
mental capacity) or doing the act
had no control over but I had no
what I was doing. choice or I
TWO TYPES made a mistake.
OF
❑ Infancy ❑ Self-defence
DEFENCES ❑ Automatism ❑ Duress
❑ Insanity ❑ Mistake
❑ Intoxication ❑ Necessity
 INFANCY
(COMPLETE DEFENCE )
 ❑ Defendants who fall into the category of
“infants” are barred from being held
criminally liable for their actions.
ENGLISH
COMMON
LAW ❑ It is a complete defence - no charges, no
prosecution, no jail time.
POSITION
❑ The defence of infancy is expressed as a
set of presumptions in a doctrine known
as doli incapax.
 ❑ These presumptions are:
❑ a child under the age of 7 (seven) is
presumed incapable of committing a
crime and the State is estopped from
proffering charges (non-rebuttable);
ENGLISH and
COMMON
❑ A child aged under 14 but older than 7
LAW is presumed incapable of committing a
POSITION crime. However, the presumption was
rebuttable by evidence showing that
the child had the capacity to
appreciate the nature and
wrongfulness of their conduct as
opposed to mere naughtiness or
childish mischief. (C v DPP [1996] 1 A.C.
 ❑ The English Common law principles on
ENGLISH infancy form part of the laws for
Commonwealth Caribbean countries.
COMMON
LAW ❑ However, most countries in the
POSITION Commonwealth Caribbean have replaced
some of these presumptions with specific
legislation.
STATUTORY Country Position on Infancy
PROVISIONS Antigua and Barbuda ▪ Section 5 of the
IN THE Child Justice Act (age
of criminal
COMMONWEALTH responsibility begins
CARIBBEAN at age 8)
 Country Position on Infancy

STATUTORY Belize ▪ Section 25(1) of the

Criminal Code (age of
PROVISIONS criminal responsibility
IN THE begins at age 9)
COMMONWEALTH ▪ Section 25 (2) of the
Code (child between
CARIBBEAN 9 and 11 can be held
liable if he/she has
attained sufficient
maturity to
understand the
wrongfulness of
his/her conduct)
STATUTORY
Country Position on Infancy
PROVISIONS Jamaica ▪ Section 64 of the Child
IN THE Care and Protection Act
(CCPA) (criminal
COMMONWEALTH responsibility begins at
CARIBBEAN age 12)
STATUTORY Country Position on Infancy
PROVISIONS
St Kitts and Nevis ▪ Section 3 of the
IN THE Juvenile Act (age of
COMMONWEALTH criminal responsibility
CARIBBEAN begins at age 8)
Trinidad and Tobago ▪ Relies entirely on the
common law position
STATUTORY Country Position on Infancy
PROVISIONS St Lucia ▪ Section 3 of
IN THE the Children and
Young Persons Act
COMMONWEALTH (age of criminal
CARIBBEAN responsibility begins
at age 12)
STATUTORY
Country Position on Infancy
PROVISIONS Dominica ▪ Section 3 of
IN THE the Children and
COMMONWEALTH Young Persons Act
(age of criminal
CARIBBEAN responsibility begins
at age 12)
STATUTORY Country Position on Infancy
PROVISIONS Guyana ▪ Section 3 of the
IN THE Juvenile Offenders Act
(age of criminal
COMMONWEALTH responsibility begins
CARIBBEAN at age 10)
Should We Change the Age
of Criminal Responsibility?
• 14-year-old schoolboy murdered in
Trelawny by 11-year-old.
• The boy being 11 could not be held
criminally responsible.
• Prompted some to argue for the age to
be lowered
• Some argued it should stay the same
• Others felt age should be increased to
14 or 16 to comply with
recommendations from the UNCRC
 AUTOMATISM (COMPLETE DEFENCE)
&
INSANITY (COMPLETE WITH PROVISO)
 ❑ Automatism is an act which is done by the
muscles without any control by the mind
or an act done by a person who is not
conscious of what he is doing. Lord
Denning in Bratty v Attorney General for
Northern Ireland

AUTOMATISM ❑ Two types of automatism :

❑ sane automatism; and
❑ insane automatism (aka insanity).

❑ The distinction between the two is

whether the act was caused by a factor
external or internal to the defendant.
 ❑ Sane automatism arises where the
involuntary act or transitory
malfunctioning of the mind is the result of
an external factor.
❑ There must be total loss of control (Broome
v Perkins)
SANE ❑ For example,
AUTOMATISM ❑ a concussion caused by a blow to the
head; or
❑ a swarm of bees causes you to lose
control of a vehicle resulting in injuries
to a pedestrian Hill v Baxter; or
❑ Ingestion of a substance Quick
(compare with Hennessy).
 ❑ Where the defendant voluntarily put
him/herself in a state of automaton or was
reckless in becoming automaton for a basic
intent offence, then the defence will be
unavailable. (R v Clarke [2009] EWCA Crim
921; R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760)

SANE ❑ Lawton LJ, in Quick:

AUTOMATISM ...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.
 ❑ A defendant has a complete defence to
any charge if he was a “sane automaton”.

❑ The onus is on the defendant to raise

evidence of a sufficient case of
automatism fit to leave the issue to the
SANE jury.

AUTOMATISM ❑ This will usually require medical evidence.

❑ Once the issue of automatism is left to

the jury the burden is on the prosecution
to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
 The elements are defined in M’Naghten Case
as:
❑ The defendant was suffering from A
defect of reason (R v Clarke [1972] 1
All ER 219);
❑ Arising from a disease of the mind. This is
something internal to the defendant that
INSANITY should affect the mental faculties of reason,
memory and understanding (Sullivan, Kemp,
(ELEMENTS) Hennesy and Burgess) ;
❑ So that the defendant did not know the
nature and quality of his/her act (R v
Codere (1916) 12 Cr App R 21); OR
❑ The defendant did not know that what
he/she was doing was wrong. (R v Windle
[1952] 2 QB 82; R v Johnson [2007] EWCA
Crim 1978 ) .
 Insanity defence was established for the
following conditions:

❑ Arteriosclerosis (Kemp);

❑ Epilepsy (Sullivan);
INSANITY
(ELEMENTS) ❑ Hyperglycemia caused by diabetes
(Hennessy) ;and

❑ Sleepwalking (Burgess).
 ❑ All the prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt is that the defendant
committed the actus reus of the offence.

❑ The burden of proof is on the defendant to

prove, on a balance of probabilities, that
he/she was insane when he/she committed
INSANITY the committed the actus reus.

❑ If the defence is successful, the defendant

will be found not guilty by reason of insanity
and generally the court will order some
custodial rehabilitation.
 INSANITY SANE AUTOMATISM

DIFFERENCES Caused by internal Caused by external

factor factor
BTWEEN
If successful, If successful,
INSANITY AND defendant is found not defendant is acquitted
SANE guilty by reason of
AUTOMATISM insanity
Defendant has burden Defendant does not
to prove on a balance have an evidential
of probabilities burden – simply needs
to raise the issue
 For cases in which insanity and
DIFFERENCES automatism are pleaded, the courts
considered the following to allow
BTWEEN the former and not the latter:
INSANITY AND
❑ The disease of the mind was caused by an
SANE internal factor.
AUTOMATISM
❑ It manifested in violence or a criminal
act.
❑ It was likely to recur.
 What are the differences between insanity
and sane automatism?

What are the difficulties with establishing

KEY both defences?
QUESTIONS
What is the relationship between intoxication
on the one hand and these two defences on
the other?
INTOXICATION
 ❑ Generally intoxication is never a defence
to any crime.

INVOLUNTARY ❑ Involuntary intoxication can be a defence if

it makes the defendant incapable of
VS forming the necessary mens rea . (Beard)
VOLUNTARY
❑ However, the defence is not available if a
INTOXICATION defendant has the necessary mens rea for
an offence but he only committed it
because he was intoxicated. A drunken
mens rea is still mens rea. It does not
matter if the intoxication was involuntary
(Kingston)
 ❑ Self-induced intoxication from drugs or
alcohol is never a defence for basic intent
offences where intention or recklessness
can be used to establish mens rea .

INVOLUNTARY ❑ But self-induced intoxication can be a

VS defence for specific intent offences where
intention or knowledge is required to
VOLUNTARY establish mens rea (Majewski)
INTOXICATION
❑ It is only a defence where it prevented the
defendant from forming the necessary
mens rea (intention) for the offence. If
successful it is a partial defence i.e.
reduces conviction. (Attorney General for
Northern Ireland v Gallagher )
 How does the voluntary or involuntary
nature of the intoxication affect liability?

Why does the law allow the defendant to

rely on self-induced intoxication for
KEY specific intent offences but not for basic
QUESTIONS intent offences?

What is the relationship between

intoxication on the one hand and insanity
and sane automatism on the other?
 Spragga and a few other friends attended a
drink-up on hall. Spragga got so drunk be
begins to flirt with Tanya, She tells him he is a
child. Jane, who secretly likes Spragga, suggests
to him that he should sleep over in her dorm
SCENARIO room. In the middle of the night Jane wakes up
to find Spragga strangling her. She manages to
fight him off but suffers severe injuries to her
neck. Spragga is prone to sleepwalking when he
drinks. He does not remember strangling Jane.

Which defences can Spragga rely on?

 THE MOST IMPACTFUL
LESSON LEARNED FROM THIS
LECTURE
Let’s discuss
THE END