The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

In DPP v Beard (1920) the defendant while he was drunk raped a 13-year-old girl and put his hands around her throat to stop her from screaming. The victim suffocated and died as a result. The defendant was charged. It was held that voluntary intoxication was never an excuse for criminal misconduct. A man who commits a crime by his own acts that destroy his will power or deprive him of the ability to reason is in no better position than a man who is sober. However, on a charge of murder, the jury cannot convict if they cannot establish the mens rea i.e. the intention to kill or the intention to cause grievous bodily harm or malice afterthought but can nonetheless convict for manslaughter. Murder is a specific intent crime (in most instances the mens rea for a specific intent crime is codified by statute) and in order to establish murder, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the elements that are required to obtain a conviction, but that does not mean that

Intoxication per se in not a defense in criminal law. It comes into play when the defendant commits an act under the influence of: - 1.      Alcohol 2.      Drugs However, without doubt, depending on the level of intoxication, it can deprive the defendant of the ability to reason. A man who is intoxicated is in no position to make sound or reasonable judgement and hence it can deprive the defendant of the mens rea (mental element) necessary for a conviction. It can be said with some degree of certainty that when the defendant commits an act, under the influence, while the actus reus may be there (physical element), the mens rea (mental element) may not be present. The law has to strike a balance between convicting a defendant who does not have the mens rea or intention to commit a crime and protecting the general public from criminal acts. If intoxication were a valid defense than anyone who wanted to commit a crime, would simply do so under the influence and w

S.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008, does not change the law on self-defense or its application and merely codifies the principles that have been established at common law. In R v McGrath (2010) the defendant and the victim were out drinking celebrating their "A" levels results and later they moved on to the defendant’s flat. The celebrations turned sour and an argument ensued. The argument got heated and according to the defendant the victim attacked her physically, spit at her and bit her and the defendant grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed the victim. The knife went through the victim’s heart and he died. The defendant was arrested and tried and at her trial, she claimed, self-defense or that she was merely reacting, instinctively, to the attack. The trial judge directed the jury on mistaken belief and on s.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008 and the jury found the defendant not guilty on the count of murder but guilty in

The defense of self-defense will not avail itself to the defendant if the defendant is the aggressor or has provoked the response or the attack. In R v Keene (2010) the defendant was out drinking. At his last stop, he met the victim who offered to give him a lift. On their way home the victim pulled over to get some petrol and the defendant got into an argument with another passenger in the car, who was smoking, telling her not to smoke. The argument got heated and the victim intervened. The defendant thought that the victim was about to attack and preemptively struck the victim, hitting him with a closed fist. The victim fell to the ground and his head hit the pavement resulting in serious head injuries. The defendant was charged and he contended that his actions were in self-defense. The trial judge directed the jury to the effect that the defense of self-defense will not avail itself to the defendant if the defendant was the aggressor or he provoked the attack and

If the defendant suffered from an abnormality of the mind, and reacted to a situation in the way and manner a normal person would not have or had used excessive force in defending himself or his property, keeping in mind that the defendant’s actions when acting in self-defense is normally instinctive, and all that the defendant needs to establish is that he or she felt that at the time his or her actions were honestly and instinctively necessary to defend himself or herself, the defense of self-defense may not avail itself to the victim, if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defense. In R v Martin (2002) the defendant lived by himself in an isolated farmhouse which for all purposes looked rundown and to some extent dilapidated and had in the past been subjected to numerous break-ins. On the night in question the victim and his friend tried to break into the farmhouse and the defendant went downstairs armed with a shotgun a

By virtue of S.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 the common law defense of self-defense was given statutory effect (an act of parliament is higher than common law and in case of conflict between the two, an act of parliament or statutory law will prevail). S.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 reads as follows: - Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc. (1) This section applies where in proceedings for an offence— (a) an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence (“D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and (b)the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person (“V”) was reasonable in the circumstances. (2) The defenses are— (a) the common law defence of self-defence; and ((aa) the common law defence of defence of property; and) (b) the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (No

When the jury is convinced excessive force was used and the jury returns a verdict of guilty of murder, should the verdict be substituted for a verdict of guilty of manslaughter if the appellant was acting in self-defense? In R v Palmer (1971) the appellant and two others were chased by some men after they’d stolen some drugs. During the chase the appellant fired some shots and one of the men that was chasing them was killed by a gunshot. The appellant was arrested and tried and according to the appellant he did not fire the shot. The judge however directed the jury on self-defense and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the judge having directed the jury on self-defense, the jury should have returned a verdict of manslaughter. The appeal was dismissed. If a verdict of murder is returned, when the appellant has pleaded self-defense there is no option to substitute a murder conviction with that of manslaughter. &quo

With reference to the decision in R v Bird (1985), it may seem or look like, to most of us anyway, that the court should impose a duty to back away or a duty to retreat prior to granting or allowing the defendant to raise the defense to self-defense however the decision in R v Bird (1985), is not without its merits. One of the reasons that the courts are reluctant to impose a duty to back away or a duty to retreat in situations like that in R v Bird (1985) is because it may place the defendant in greater danger and decisions like the decision in R v Bird (1985) become more relevant in the area of psychological profiling. There is nothing to suggest that the defendant backing away, or retreating, for that matter, will make the attacker relent. If anything, it tends to suggest the opposite, especially in areas of spouse or wife abuse where the wife or spouse’s helplessness or weakness to some extent aggravates the situation as implied by the facts in cases like R v Duffy (194

In order to the rely on the defense of self-defense the defendant does not have to back away from a situation or there is no requirement for the defendant to withdraw prior to using reasonable force or force that is necessary i.e. there is no duty to retreat. While it goes to show or demonstrate that the defendant was acting in good faith there is no requirement that the defendant should retreat prior to the situation getting out of hand or out of control. In R v Bird (1985) the defendant was at a party when her ex-boyfriend turned up with his new girlfriend. He approached the defendant and a heated argument ensued and the defendant asked him to leave. He did so but returned later and the argument flared up again and got more heated. The defendant got so worked up that she poured her drink over her ex-boyfriend and he retaliated by slapping her and pining her to the wall. The defendant responded by punching him in the eye and when she did so, the glass in her hand broke

In R v Scarlett (1994) the defendant was a publican who was trying to evict a customer who was drunk. The defendant asked the customer to leave and he refused to do so and the defendant believed that the man was about to strike him so he pinned the man’s arms to his back and forcefully took him outside and left him by the wall of the lobby. The man fell backwards, down a flight of 5 steps, hit his head and died as a result. The defendant was tried and convicted for manslaughter. The defendant appealed. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. There was no evidence to indicate that the defendant had used excessive force. “They ought not to convict him unless they are satisfied that the degree of force used was plainly more than was called for by the circumstances as he believed them to be and, provided he believed the circumstances called for the degree of force used, he was not to be convicted even if his belief was unreasonable.” The test to decide whethe