FAILURE OF

PROOF
GROUP MEMBERS
N ATA L I A S A R D A R G O N D A L
Z AI NAB ATT I QUE
ZAINAB JAMSHAID
WA R I S H A Z A H O O R M I R
DEFENCES

• There are two kinds of defences

1. Affirmative Defences
2. Failure of Proof Defences
AUTOMATISM

• When the defendant is not aware of their conduct due to an external element, frequently medication, a
finding of non-insane automatism may also be made
• The primary distinction between crazy and non-insane automatism is that the deficiency of reason in the
former must be brought on by an internal source, whereas the involuntary action in the latter must be
brought on by an external one.
CASE LAWS

• Broome v perkins
• Bratty v A G of Northern Ireland
• R v Quick
• RvT
SELF INDUCED AUTOMATISM

It is not a legal defence against a crime with simple intent.

• R v. Bailey: The Court of Appeals determined that what mattered wasn't what could have
been expected but rather what the defendant had foreseen.
• R v. Lipman: The defendant took LSD and put a sheet in his girlfriend's mouth, making her
seem like a snake in his delusional state. Manslaughter was the charge against him. As his
illness was self-inflicted, the court determined that he was guilty. He could have presented
proof of his acid trip to refute the mens rea if there had been a murder accusation.
• Strict liability offences
Automatism can be pleaded for strict liability offences too such as driving. Automatism involves
both a rejection of the actus reus and a denial of mens rea.
In the case of Burns v. Bidder, the defendant was excused from responsibility since he wasn't
operating his car.

• For a jury to consider the automatism defence, adequate automatism evidence

 INSANITY

• If successfully raised, the judge will give the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
• The defence is unpopular as it does not lead to an unqualified acquittal.
• The judge may for example grant a mandatory hospitalization order.
• It can be raised by both the defence and the prosecution.
THE M’NAGHTEN RULES
• The rules that govern the defence of insanity are given in M’Naghten case:
1. There is a defect of reason due to the disease of mind.
2. Defect of reason makes him/her unaware of the nature or quality of the act.
3. Defect of reasoning makes him unaware of what he was doing
Disease of the Mind
• Any disease, which produces a malfunctioning of the mind, is a disease of mind, and need not
be a disease of the brain.
• R v Kamp (1957)
Difference from automatism
• Insanity triggered from internal factors.
• Automatism triggered from external factors.
• R v Bingham (1991)
Defect of reasoning
• Powers of reasoning must be impaired not merely confusion or absentmindedness.
• R v Clarke 1972
The defendant did not know the nature and quality of his act
• R v Oye 2013
The defendant did not know his act was wrong
• The defendant did not know his act was wrong.
• R v Windle 1952
 INTOXICATION

It is an anti-defence because intoxication is an excuse for

no crime even if the intoxication was voluntary and the
defendant would not have committed crime if sober.
Intoxication is only relevant if it negates an element in the
definition of a crime, most obviously mens rea. There is a
distinction between voluntary and involuntary
Intoxication in law.
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

• The most obvious example of involuntary intoxication is where a

person has had their food or drink spiked without their knowledge.
• Case : Kingston [1994]
Held:
• It was held that where the intent of crime was present, it was
irrelevant whether it arouse out of the circumstances that was not
the defendants fault. Thus, a drunken intent is still an intent.
• However, if the effect is anticipated but the defendant merely
underestimates the strength, then the intoxication remains voluntary
• Case : R v Allen 1988
Held :
The intoxication was still voluntary even though he had not realized
the strength of it. The crime of sexual assault is one of basic intent
and therefore the appellant was unable to rely on his intoxicated state
to negative the mens rea.
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

Where the defendant has voluntarily put themselves in the position

of being intoxicated to the extent that they are not capable of
forming the mental element of the crime the law is less forgiving.
Crimes of specific intent and voluntary intoxication:
Crimes of specific intent include crimes where the offence can only
be committed intentionally. Voluntary Intoxication can be sued to
support a denial of mens rea only for crimes of specific intent. E.g..
Murder, Grevious Bodily Harm.
• Case: R v Lipman
The appellant had taken some LSD. He was hallucinating
and believed he was being attacked by snakes and
descending to the center of the earth. Whilst in this state he
killed a girl by cramming bed sheets into her mouth.
It was held that his intoxication could be used to demonstrate
that he lacked the mens rea for murder as murder is a crime
of specific intent.
• Crimes of Basic Intent and Voluntary intoxication:
Crimes of basic intent include crimes where the offence
does not require to proof the intention as a fault element.
E.g.. Assault, Criminal Damage, manslaughter, etc.
Where a defendant’s intoxication is voluntary and the crime
is one of basic intent, the defendant is not permitted to rely
on their intoxicated state to indicate that they lack the mens
rea of the crime.
• Case: Majewski [1977]
The appellant was involved in a bar brawl where he assaulted several
people. He also assaulted a number of police officers during the
course of his arrest. Consequently, the appellant was charged with
assault.
Held : His conviction upheld. The crime was one of basic intent and
therefore his intoxication could not be relied on as a defence.
INTOXICATION AND DUTCH COURAGE
• Where a person forms the intention to commit a crime and then
drinks in order to enable them to carryout the crime, they can not
then claim the intoxication prevented them from forming the
mens rea.
• Case: A-G for N. Ireland v. Gallagher:
Gallagher was found to have committed murder as there was
clear evidence of premeditation. Where a person forms the
intention to kill and drinks in order to give themselves Dutch
courage, they can not then rely on their intoxication to
demonstrate they did not have the necessary mens rea.
INSTANCES WHERE INTOXICATION WOULD BE

CONSIDERED INVOLUNTARY:

There are a few instances where court consider intoxication to be involuntary:

i) It must be under medical supervision

ii) Secretly administered to the defendant without his knowledge

iii) Voluntarily taken by the defendant to mistake its property

PRINCIPLES LAID IN MAJEWSKI [1977]:

• The intoxication of a person by an intoxication which he takes otherwise than

properly for a medical purpose and according to medical instructions, knowing
that it is or may be an intoxicant account for voluntary intoxication and such
person can’t rely on his intoxicated state to negate mens rea for his act.

• This judgement therefore provided that voluntary intoxication is no excuse for

crimes of basic intent.
INTOXICATED MISTAKE AS A DEFENSE:

• The defendant, due to his intoxicated state formed a mistaken belief and committed an act.

• Like in Jaggard v Dickinson:

• Where the Defendant, due to her intoxicated state mistakenly believed someone else’s house
as her friend’s and broke into the house. The appeal was successful, defendant was allowed
to rely on mistake as a defense, this formed a special statutory exception to the general rule
set down in Majewski.
FOR CLAIMS OF SELF-DEFENSE UNDER
MISTAKEN BELIEF:

• Where a defendant is labouring under a mistaken belief that they are

under attack and acting in self-defence, they can not rely on such mistaken
belief where it was induced by voluntary intoxication. This applies to
crimes of both basic intent and specific intent. 
R V O’GRADY:

Defendant after heavily drinking slept. D claimed that his friend woke him up and
was beating him, therefore, he picked up some broken glass and hit him a few times
acting in self-defense. Later in the morning the friend was found dead. D was
convicted for manslaughter on which he appealed claiming that he acted under
mistaken belief. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction upheld. A
defendant is not entitled to rely, so far as self-defense is concerned, upon a mistake of
fact which has been induced by voluntary intoxication.
CONCLUSION:

• Defenses as to failure of proof provide evidential basis the one of the elements of
the offence is lacking. A criminal defendant will be acquitted if the prosecution
cannot prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In certain
cases, the defendant can either deny that a criminal element(s) exists or simply
sit back and wait for the prosecution to fail in meeting its burden of proof. Such
defenses are considered to be simplest defense an individual can take.