CRIMINAL LAW: AUTOMATISM DURESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES
Automatism is a defence which was explained in the case of Bratty v A-G N. Where the defendant has to commit an offence due to the ci
SUMMARY OF DEFENCES Ireland as: find themselves in. To prove this, they must show that:
‘An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind due to an 1. He acted in a way because he feared serious injury or de
LEGAL TERMINOLOGY: external factor’. 2. A reasonable person of the same characteristics and firm
• Subjective: it is based on a reasonable person This then set out our elements which we must prove: threat
• Objective: they consider the characteristics of the defendant (person by person 1. Involuntary
basis) The D did not have any control over what they were doing (Bratty v Potential issues:
• Reverse Onus: the burden is shifted to the defence to prove their innocence. (a A-G N.I.) • Allowed for driving offences (Conway)
defence is raised it will be on the defence to prove) 2. Due to an external factor • Threats to others is allowed (Martin)
• Recklessness: the act done was ill-thought and dangerous without much External factors: shock reaction, PTSD, blow to the head (Hill v • Possession of a prohibited weapon is allowed (Pommell)
planning of what could happen Baxter)
•
•
Intention: the defendant wanted to bring across those consequences
Indirect intent: set out in Woollin, it showed that death or injury from doing
Potential Issues
Self-induced?
CONSENT
the act was a virtual certainty and the defendant took the risk anyway A defence to non-fatal offences (apart from s.18 and s.20 & s
If the D is self-induced, they will only be able to use it for specific intent
• Self-induced: the D bought about the consequences on himself person consents, there is no offence. Never a defence to mur
crimes as it was reckless to be self-induced anyway. (Hardie)
• Voluntary: the D did the act on their free will 1. What can people consent to? (Wilson v Pringle)
What cant people consent to (exceptions)
•
•
Involuntary: the D was forced, or had an unexcepted reaction to something
Actus reus: the physical act of the offence committed
SELF DEFENCE 2. Is the consent real? (Fraud = Tabassum/ Threat = Olujbo
• Self-defence is set out in Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. Depending on 3. Is it informed consent? (Dica)
Mens rea: the mental state of the defendant for the act
the type of self-defence (whether it is a householder offence or not) will 4. What if it was mistaken belief? (Aitken)
depend on the level of force allowed/ what the jury can accept. Looking at Exceptions
INSANITY To prove this it requires: • Medical Procedures (Blaue)
Insanity was set out in the case of M’Naughten and it showed that the defence 1. Necessary force (Hussain) • Body Adornments (Wilson)
must prove three elements: 2. Reasonable force (Martin) • Properly Conducted Sports (Barnes)
1. Defect of reason Potential Issues • Horseplay (Jones)
They must show that their ability of reason was completely impaired • Pre-emptive strike/pre-emptive fear is allowed: Bird However, consent cannot be given to:
Absent mindedness or being confused is not enough (Clarke) • Mistaken belief, take it as the D actual state of knowledge: Gladstone • Sado-masochist acts exceeding minor harm (Brown/Emm
2. Caused by a disease of the mind (Must be an internal factor Quick) • Householder: allowed disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate • Procedures which require medical knowledge (R v BM)
Hardening of the arteries (Kemp) Under 16?
Epilepsy (Sullivan)
No insulin for 3 days (Hennessy)
DURESS OF THREATS Gillick Competency: if they show the understanding and matu
and does not need parent permission. (Gillick and demonstra
Sleep disorder (Bugess) This defence is used where the D has been forced into doing something due
to a threat. Never a defence to murder (Grotts/Wilson). To prove this:
3. Didn’t know the:
Nature of the conduct (Oye) 1. A threat INTOXICATION
Didn’t know it was legally wrong (Johnson) Must be of death or serious injury VOLENENTRY INTOXICATION
2. Reasonable Person (Graham Test) When proving voluntary intoxication, the defence must prove
Did the D act like he did because he believed in the threat? 1. They were so intoxicated that they couldn’t form the me
NECESSITY Would a reasonable person believe in the threat (Reasonable don’t Moore)
Necessity can be used when the defendant had to act in a way for the greater include IQ: Bowen) 2. Too the intoxicating substance on their own free will
good. The defence must prove: 3. Immediacy 3. It was for a specific intent crime (Majewski [Majewski w
1. Act done was to avoid the greater evil No possibility of escape (Hudson and Taylor)
Broke one persons leg to avoid 10 people breaking their legs 4. Connection between threat and offence (Cole) VOLENENTRY INTOXICATION
2. Greater evil must be directed towards the D or someone close to the D 4. Must prove they couldn’t form the mens rea (Kingston)
Teacher-Student / Parent-Child Potential issues: 5. Allowed for basic and specific intent
3. Act must be reasonable and in proportion Intoxicated: might be able to use if there was a threat, not if there wasn’t Potential issues
Potential issues: Self-induced threat: Dutch courage: Not allowed (A-G N. Ireland v Gallagher)
• Generally, not a defence to murder (Dudley and Stephens) However, Yes, if you didn’t know the risk by being with those people (Shepherd) Opposite effects of prescribed drugs is allowed (Hardie)
• It can be allowed in very rare circumstances: Re A (conjoined twins) Maybe, if you knew that you could be subject to threats (Sharp) Mistaken belief: allowed (but if voluntary only for specific or
Automatism is a defence which was explained in the case of Bratty v A-G N. Where the defendant has to commit an offence due to the ci
SUMMARY OF DEFENCES Ireland as: find themselves in. To prove this, they must show that:
‘An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind due to an 1. He acted in a way because he feared serious injury or de
LEGAL TERMINOLOGY: external factor’. 2. A reasonable person of the same characteristics and firm
• Subjective: it is based on a reasonable person This then set out our elements which we must prove: threat
• Objective: they consider the characteristics of the defendant (person by person 1. Involuntary
basis) The D did not have any control over what they were doing (Bratty v Potential issues:
• Reverse Onus: the burden is shifted to the defence to prove their innocence. (a A-G N.I.) • Allowed for driving offences (Conway)
defence is raised it will be on the defence to prove) 2. Due to an external factor • Threats to others is allowed (Martin)
• Recklessness: the act done was ill-thought and dangerous without much External factors: shock reaction, PTSD, blow to the head (Hill v • Possession of a prohibited weapon is allowed (Pommell)
planning of what could happen Baxter)
•
•
Intention: the defendant wanted to bring across those consequences
Indirect intent: set out in Woollin, it showed that death or injury from doing
Potential Issues
Self-induced?
CONSENT
the act was a virtual certainty and the defendant took the risk anyway A defence to non-fatal offences (apart from s.18 and s.20 & s
If the D is self-induced, they will only be able to use it for specific intent
• Self-induced: the D bought about the consequences on himself person consents, there is no offence. Never a defence to mur
crimes as it was reckless to be self-induced anyway. (Hardie)
• Voluntary: the D did the act on their free will 1. What can people consent to? (Wilson v Pringle)
What cant people consent to (exceptions)
•
•
Involuntary: the D was forced, or had an unexcepted reaction to something
Actus reus: the physical act of the offence committed
SELF DEFENCE 2. Is the consent real? (Fraud = Tabassum/ Threat = Olujbo
• Self-defence is set out in Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. Depending on 3. Is it informed consent? (Dica)
Mens rea: the mental state of the defendant for the act
the type of self-defence (whether it is a householder offence or not) will 4. What if it was mistaken belief? (Aitken)
depend on the level of force allowed/ what the jury can accept. Looking at Exceptions
INSANITY To prove this it requires: • Medical Procedures (Blaue)
Insanity was set out in the case of M’Naughten and it showed that the defence 1. Necessary force (Hussain) • Body Adornments (Wilson)
must prove three elements: 2. Reasonable force (Martin) • Properly Conducted Sports (Barnes)
1. Defect of reason Potential Issues • Horseplay (Jones)
They must show that their ability of reason was completely impaired • Pre-emptive strike/pre-emptive fear is allowed: Bird However, consent cannot be given to:
Absent mindedness or being confused is not enough (Clarke) • Mistaken belief, take it as the D actual state of knowledge: Gladstone • Sado-masochist acts exceeding minor harm (Brown/Emm
2. Caused by a disease of the mind (Must be an internal factor Quick) • Householder: allowed disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate • Procedures which require medical knowledge (R v BM)
Hardening of the arteries (Kemp) Under 16?
Epilepsy (Sullivan)
No insulin for 3 days (Hennessy)
DURESS OF THREATS Gillick Competency: if they show the understanding and matu
and does not need parent permission. (Gillick and demonstra
Sleep disorder (Bugess) This defence is used where the D has been forced into doing something due
to a threat. Never a defence to murder (Grotts/Wilson). To prove this:
3. Didn’t know the:
Nature of the conduct (Oye) 1. A threat INTOXICATION
Didn’t know it was legally wrong (Johnson) Must be of death or serious injury VOLENENTRY INTOXICATION
2. Reasonable Person (Graham Test) When proving voluntary intoxication, the defence must prove
Did the D act like he did because he believed in the threat? 1. They were so intoxicated that they couldn’t form the me
NECESSITY Would a reasonable person believe in the threat (Reasonable don’t Moore)
Necessity can be used when the defendant had to act in a way for the greater include IQ: Bowen) 2. Too the intoxicating substance on their own free will
good. The defence must prove: 3. Immediacy 3. It was for a specific intent crime (Majewski [Majewski w
1. Act done was to avoid the greater evil No possibility of escape (Hudson and Taylor)
Broke one persons leg to avoid 10 people breaking their legs 4. Connection between threat and offence (Cole) VOLENENTRY INTOXICATION
2. Greater evil must be directed towards the D or someone close to the D 4. Must prove they couldn’t form the mens rea (Kingston)
Teacher-Student / Parent-Child Potential issues: 5. Allowed for basic and specific intent
3. Act must be reasonable and in proportion Intoxicated: might be able to use if there was a threat, not if there wasn’t Potential issues
Potential issues: Self-induced threat: Dutch courage: Not allowed (A-G N. Ireland v Gallagher)
• Generally, not a defence to murder (Dudley and Stephens) However, Yes, if you didn’t know the risk by being with those people (Shepherd) Opposite effects of prescribed drugs is allowed (Hardie)
• It can be allowed in very rare circumstances: Re A (conjoined twins) Maybe, if you knew that you could be subject to threats (Sharp) Mistaken belief: allowed (but if voluntary only for specific or
