“The Court of Criminal Appeal certified that their decision in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal involved two points of law of general public importance. The first was ” whether, his plea of insanity having been rejected by ” the jury, it was open to the accused to rely upon a defence of automatism “. This raises the question whether a person who by legal tests and standards is sane and who is charged with a criminal offence could be held to be non-accountable for his actions so as to be not guilty of the offence charged against him on the basis that his actions had been unconscious ones and in that sense involuntary.

The second point of law certified was expressed in these words: ” If the ” answer to (1) be in the affirmative, whether, on the evidence, the defence of automatism should have been left to the jury.” This raises the question whether there was any evidence of ” automatism ” which was fit to be left to the jury.”

To read the case click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“What are the relevant characteristics of the accused to which the jury should have regard in considering the second objective test in duress. This question has given rise to considerable difficulty in recent cases. It seems clear that age and sex are, and physical health or disability may be, relevant characteristics. But beyond that it is not altogether easy to determine from the authorities what others may be relevant.”

To read the case click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“On 28 March 1985 the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. On 10 October 1985 the Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed his appeal against conviction, and gave leave to appeal, certifying the following question as being of exceptional public importance:

‘1.(a) Must the test to be applied for self defence be based on what a person reasonably believed on reasonable grounds to be necessary to resist an attack or should it be what the accused honestly believed?

1.(b) Where, in the instant case, on a trial of an indictment for murder the issue of self defence is raised is it a proper direction in law for the Jury to be told by the trial Judge: A man who is attacked in circumstances where he reasonably believes his life to be in danger or that he is in danger of serious bodily injury may use such force as on reasonable grounds he thinks necessary in order to resist the attack and if in using such force he kills his assailant he is not guilty of any crime even if the killing is intentional?’”

To read the case click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“Section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 makes it a criminal offence to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of fourteen, or to incite a child under that age to such an act. The question raised by the appeal concerns the mental element in this offence so far as the age ingredient is concerned.

The answer to this question depends upon the proper interpretation of the section…

As habitually happens with statutory offences, when enacting this offence Parliament defined the prohibited conduct solely in terms of the proscribed physical acts. Section 1(1) says nothing about the mental element. In particular, the section says nothing about what shall be the position if the person who commits or incites the act of gross indecency honestly but mistakenly believed that the child was fourteen or over.

In these circumstances the starting point for a court is the established common law presumption that a mental element, traditionally labelled mens rea, is an essential ingredient unless Parliament has indicated a contrary intention either expressly or by necessary implication… Is there here a compellingly clear implication that Parliament should be taken to have intended that the ordinary common law requirement of a mental element should be excluded in respect of the age ingredient of this new offence”

To read the case click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“This is a reference to the Court by the Attorney General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972. The point of law upon which the Court is asked to give its opinion is as follows: “Where two persons fight (otherwise than in the course of sport) in a public place can it be a defence for one of those persons to a charge of assault arising out of the fight that the other consented to fight.”

To read the case click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“The question referred by Her Majesty’s Attorney General to this Court for consideration is as follows: “Whether the defence of self-defence is available to a defendant charged with offences under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 and section 6k of the Offences Against the Person Act l86l”

To read the case click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“The CCRC referred his case to this court because, following the decision of the House of Lords in Morgan Smith [2001] 1 AC 146, and given a new assertion that the appellant had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse, there was doubt that the issue of provocation had properly been before the jury…”

To read the decision of the Court of Appeal click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“This appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Maidstone of an offence of sexual assault contrary to section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003. The issue to which his conviction gives rise is whether he can or cannot be heard to say that by reason of voluntary intoxication he did not have the necessary state of mind to commit the offence.”

To read the case click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“It is well established that a genuine but mistaken belief can be relied upon as a defence to a criminal charge such as false imprisonment where the Crown have to prove that the defendant’s conduct was unlawful. This principle is well illustrated by the case of R v Gladstone Williams [1984] 78 CAR 276 where the appellant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He had assaulted a man in the street in defence of another whom he had mistakenly believed was being unlawfully assaulted… So what about defence of property?”

To read the report click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–

“This appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jersey calls for examination of the law relating to provocation as a defence or, more precisely, as a partial defence to a charge of murder. Jersey law on this subject is the same as English law. In July 2000 the House of Lords considered the ingredients of this defence in the Morgan Smith case (R v Smith (Morgan) [2001] 1 AC 146). The decision of the House in that case is in direct conflict with the decision of their Lordships’ Board in Luc Thiet Thuan v The Queen [1997] AC 131. And the reasoning of the majority in the Morgan Smith case is not easy to reconcile with the reasoning of the House of Lords in R v Camplin [1978] AC 705 or R v Morhall [1996] AC 90. This appeal, being heard by an enlarged Board of nine members, is concerned to resolve this conflict and clarify definitively the present state of English law, and hence Jersey law, on this important subject.”

To read the decision click here

–

Links		Click
	CRIMINAL LAW RECORDED LECTURES, QUIZZES AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS	Criminal Law Online
	REVISION SEMINARS FOR LLB AND GDL STUDENTS	QED LAW REVISION

–