GENERAL DEFENCES

GENERAL DEFENCES TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 TASK 11 1.1 Differentiate between general and complete defence1 TASK 22 2.1 Effectiveness of M'Naghten rule in establishing defence of insanity2 TASK 32 3.1 Comparison between automatism and insanity defence2 3.2 Assess the scope of the defence of automatism 3 TASK 44 4.1 Scope of defence of duress of threat and circumstances 4 TASK 54 5.1 Evaluate the mistake as a defence4 TASK 65 6.1 Use of insanity and

GENERAL DEFENCES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Differentiate between general and complete defence.......................................................1
TASK 2............................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Effectiveness of M'Naghten rule in establishing defence of insanity...............................2
TASK 3............................................................................................................................................2
3.1 Comparison between automatism and insanity defence...................................................2
3.2 Assess the scope of the defence of automatism................................................................3
TASK 4............................................................................................................................................4
4.1 Scope of defence of duress of threat and circumstances..................................................4
TASK 5............................................................................................................................................4
5.1 Evaluate the mistake as a defence....................................................................................4
TASK 6............................................................................................................................................5
6.1 Use of voluntary and involuntary intoxication as a defence............................................5
6.2 Differentiate between specific and basic intent crime......................................................5
TASK 7............................................................................................................................................6
7.1 Limitation of the defence of consent and infancy............................................................6
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
General defence refers to an argument used as a defence or excuse, which is presented in
favour of a person who committed a criminal act in order to prevent them from legal liabilities
(Reed and Bohlander, 2016). It includes different types of defence such as insanity, automatism,
duress of threat and circumstances. This report includes an explanation about various excuses
used as a defence which involves a scope of automation and its comparison with insanity defence
along with the use of M’Naghten Rule. Further, this report describes the scope and use of
voluntary and involuntary intoxication as a defence.
TASK 1
1.1 Differentiate between general and complete defence
Defence refers to an action performed by a person in order to protect someone or
something. These are of two types i.e. general and complete defence, and differences between
them are explained below: -
General Defence Complete Defence
 It refers to the defence used against
a criminal action and its judgement
may or may not be in favour of
defendant.
 Under this, if defendant fails to
establish the defence properly then
they are liable for punishment either
partially or completely (Robinson,
2017).
 For instance, if a defendant
murdered someone and establish a
defence that she killed that person
unintentionally. Then may be her
punishment reduced from death
penalty to imprisonment. This
 Complete defence refers to a legal
defence which nullifies an entire
claim against defendant.
 In complete defence, if the
defendant succeeds in establishing
defence then they will be acquitted.
 For instance, if a woman attempts a
murder and argues in court that she
killed a person for protecting
herself, then she can get release
from legal liabilities. This action is
considering as a complete defence.
1

action is known as General defence.
TASK 2
2.1 Effectiveness of M'Naghten rule in establishing defence of insanity
M'Naghten rule is a test which is used to identify whether a person who applied for
defence of insanity was actually suffering from mental illness or was sane at the time of
attempting a criminal action (The M'Naghten Rule, 2018). This rule is very effective in
establishing the defence of insanity as it assists court in taking right decisions against criminals
by using following procedures:
 Under this rule, several tests are being performed over criminals to determine whether the
defendant is suffering from any mental illness or not.
 Next, evidence is presented to show that defendants are not aware about the nature of act
they are performing due to mental defects.
 Finally, this rule tries to find out whether a defendants know that the action performed by
them was right or wrong (Thompson and Georges, 2014).
For instance, a person killed his wife and daughter then calmly waited for police to
arrive. The M'Naghten Rule was applied in order to determine his mental health and these tests
found that the person was psychologically ill and was not in a state to differentiate between right
and wrong. Hence, the person was not found guilty and is provided with mental health facility.
TASK 3
3.1 Comparison between automatism and insanity defence
Automatism: - It refers to a legal defence which argues that a wrong action committed
by an individual is done without a criminal intent and they are not held responsible for this
criminal attempt.
Insanity: - Insanity is a legal defence which argues that a defendant is suffering from
certain mental illness and is not able to differentiate between right and wrong (Adjorlolo, Agboli
and Chan, 2016). Hence, the defendant is not responsible for the commitment of unlawful action.
Following table shows the comparison between Insanity and Automation: -
Insanity Automatism
2

 Insanity defence is applicable when a
person is suffering from any mental
illness and is not responsible for actions
performed by them.
 Insanity is an excuse from getting free
from legal compliances.
 Insanity can be raised by both
defendant as well as prosecution and
the burden for proof is on defendant.
 This defence is used when a person
performs some act unintentionally
because of reflex action or convulsion.
 Automatism is an act of defence in
order to prove that defendant didn't
actually commit actus reus (Rix, 2015).
 Automatism can only be raised by the
defendant and the burden of proof is on
prosecution.
3.2 Assess the scope of the defence of automatism
Automatism is a defence which exclude responsibilities of a person by negating the
existence of actus reus and is applicable to both conventional as well as strict liability offences.
Strict automation is used against strict liability offences to denial actus reus which includes
reasons like dissociation or hyperglycaemia. On the other hand, to denial mens rea,
unconsciousness defence is used which is easier to prove and commonly used for non-strict
liability crimes.
Automatism is used as a defence against unconscious involuntary action but sometimes
used by criminals as an excuse and it gives rise to various problems (Thompson and Georges,
2014). Hence, the court has restricted the scope of automatism and by dividing it into two
varieties i.e. sane & insane. When reason behind a criminal act is considered as 'disease of mind'
then this situation is taken under the insane automatism. On the other hand, sane automation is
applicable to situation when defendant attempted an unlawful act unintentionally because of
some threats or external factor (Shaw, 2015). For instance, if a person is patient of diabetes and
while driving a car, he faced hypoglycaemia situation and committed an accident unintentionally.
Then in such conditions, the defendant could use automatism defence in courts and present in
defendant's medical report as an evidence to prove himself innocent.
3

TASK 4
4.1 Scope of defence of duress of threat and circumstances
Duress refers to the act of performing some unlawful actions under the pressure of other
persons by threatening or using other illicit means, which is against an individual's will.
Defences under duress are of two types:
(A)Duress by threats: - The duress by threat refers to the situation when a person is
threatened and is forced to commit a criminal act. Under this, defence is only applicable if the
person is threatening for death or bodily injury which is immediate and create a reasonable fear
in defendant (Joyce, 2015). For example, if a person is threatened or blackmailed by the third
party to attempt a murder otherwise they will harm his family member. Thus, that person can use
the threat of harm as a defence in court to prove himself innocent.
(B)Duress by circumstances, necessities and self-defence: - Duress of circumstances
defence is applicable when a person attempts a criminal act which is very essential to perform
under such circumstances in order to remove an imminent threat of death or injury to themselves
or another person. For instance, if a plan hijacks and an individual takes an action to save others
by attacking terrorists using their weapons which is illegal but is the necessity of the situation,
and in this situation, that person can use duress of necessities as a defence. (Bond, 2015).
TASK 5
5.1 Evaluate the mistake as a defence
In some circumstances, criminal defendant argues that they don't commit a crime
intentionally rather they faced certain circumstances that result in that crime. So in this situation,
criminal uses mistake as a defence in court in order to safeguard themselves from a punishment
related to crime for which they are not responsible. Defence as a mistake are applicable in
following conditions: -
 Mistake by fact: - It is a situation when a person misunderstood the fact and performed
some actions which is illegal and is considered as crime in context of law. For example: -
If a person purchased a property which is involved in illegal practices and that person is
not aware about it, then he can put his concerns in the court to defend himself.
 Mistake by law: - Mistake by law refers to the defence where criminal defendant argues
that they were misunderstood or were not aware about the existence of particular law.
4

These defence are applicable to limited circumstances and in most of the situations, this
defence gets rejected because it is the responsibility of every individual to be aware about
the laws of their state or community.
TASK 6
6.1 Use of voluntary and involuntary intoxication as a defence
Intoxication defence is used in a situation when the criminal defendant is not in conscious
mind due to some drug or alcohol which is taken by them either by choice or unintentionally and
committed a criminal activity. In such situation, the defendants can use intoxication defence, but
it is applicable to very limited circumstances that depends on whether the intoxication is
voluntary or involuntary.
Involuntary Intoxication: - Involuntary intoxication occurs when someone is forced or
tricked into consuming substances like drugs or alcohol (Thompson and Georges, 2014). This
defence can be used in a situation when a person intake some drugs unintentionally and
committed a crime, then they can use involuntary intoxication defence in order to prove that the
defendant was not able to understand his or her action at that time.
Voluntary Intoxication: - It is a situation when a defendant takes some substances like
drug or alcohol intentionally and committed a crime. Voluntary intoxication defence is very
harder to apply and is only allowed for certain crimes.
6.2 Differentiate between specific and basic intent crime
The majority of criminal actions are performed with some intentions or sometimes
recklessly and availability of defence is based upon the level of intent for committing a crime.
These acts fall under two categories i.e. specific and general intent, which are different from each
other.
Following table shows the differences between these two intents: -
Specific Intent General Intent
 The specific intent crime requires
offender, who has an intent or purpose
during the commission of crime.
 Generally, it involves acts like murder,
theft, burglary, robbery etc.
 Under this, the crime only requires an
intent to perform an action, offender
doesn't need to have any additional
intentions.
 It includes criminal acts such as assault,
5

 The specific intent crime occurs when
the defendant performs an act with an
intention to produce result.
 Specific intents are more sophisticated
with high level of culpability and result
in severe punishment.
involuntary manslaughter, negligent
homicide, solicitation, arson etc.
 The defendant performs an actions with
intention but without the knowledge of
its result, it is considered under general
intent (Akers, 2017).
 General intent is easier to prove as
compared to specific intent and also
result in less severe punishment.
TASK 7
7.1 Limitation of the defence of consent and infancy
Defence of consent: - The consent is used as a defence to prevent a defendant from
liabilities related to its criminal act. Defence of consent is used when an illegal act has been
committed but was result of some circumstances and offender was against the occurrence of
crime (Ploug and Holm, 2015). The defence of consent is not applicable to the crime rather is
limited to mens rea of crime which includes theft, criminal damage, bodily harm etc.
Defence of infancy: - The infancy is a type of criminal defence which is used to prevent
a defendant from its liabilities related to their criminal attempt by presenting reason of
defendant's young age. Statuary legislation of U.S. has replaced law of infancy and limiting the
defence in following ways:
 Children below the age of 7 years are only held under the category of doli incapax means
incapable in forming a criminal intent.
 Children between the age of 7-14 have an understanding of their actions and are capable
of building the intent of crime. The child is responsible for the criminal action until they
have strong evidence to prove it wrong.
CONCLUSION
From the above report, it has been concluded that a criminal action is performed either
intentionally or because of circumstances which force a person to perform an unlawful act. Some
6

legal defence are used by individuals who committed crime unintentionally such as consent,
excuse of duress by using voluntary and involuntary intoxication as defence.
7

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Adjorlolo, S., Agboli, J. M. and Chan, H. C., 2016. Criminal responsibility and the insanity
defence in Ghana: The examination of legal standards and assessment issues. Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law. 23(5). pp.684-695.
Akers, R., 2017. Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance.
Routledge.
Bond, J., 2015. The Defence of Duress in Canadian Refugee Law. Queen's LJ. 41. p.409.
Dinstein, Y., 2017. War, aggression and self-defence. Cambridge University Press.
Joyce, M., 2015. Duress: from Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court, finding the
balance between justification and excuse. Leiden journal of international law. 28(3). pp.623-
642.
Ploug, T. and Holm, S., 2015. Meta consent: a flexible and autonomous way of obtaining
informed consent for secondary research. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online). 350.
Reed, A. and Bohlander, M., 2016. General Defences in Criminal Law: Domestic and
Comparative Perspectives. Routledge.
Rix, K. J., 2015. The common law defence of automatism: A quagmire for the psychiatrist.
BJPsych Advances. 21(4). pp.242-250.
Robinson, P. H., 2017. General Defences. In The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 97-
154). Routledge.
Shaw, E., 2015. Automatism and mental disorder in scots criminal law. Edinburgh Law Review.
19(2). pp.210-233.
Thompson Jr, J. W. and Georges, H., 2014. Intoxication Defenses. The Encyclopedia of Clinical
Psychology, pp.1-6.
Online
Defence of Duress. 2018. [Online] Available through
<https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/duress/>.
The M'Naghten Rule. 2018. [Online] Available through <https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-
procedure/the-m-naghten-rule.html>
8