Criminal Defences: General and Specific

This assignment delves into the realm of criminal defences, discussing both general and specific defences that can be utilized to protect individuals from liabilities related to criminal actions. General defences include automatism, insanity, intoxication, duress of threat, circumstance, necessity, and self-defence. Specific defence of infancy is also explored, where a young person's lack of understanding or ability to develop crime intent may lead to reduced liability. The assignment aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the various defences that can be applied in criminal law cases.

General Defences

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Difference between “general defences” and “complete defences”.......................................1
TASK 2............................................................................................................................................1
2.1 Effectiveness of M’Naghten rules in establishing a defence of insanity..............................1
TASK 3............................................................................................................................................2
3.1 Comparison of defences of automatism and insanity...........................................................2
3.2 Scope of defence of automatism ..........................................................................................3
TASK 4............................................................................................................................................3
4.1 Evaluation of scope of defences............................................................................................3
TASK 5............................................................................................................................................4
5.1 Evaluation of mistake as a defence.......................................................................................4
TASK 6............................................................................................................................................5
6.1 Use of voluntary and involuntary intoxication as a defence.................................................5
6.2 Difference between specific and basic intent crimes............................................................5
TASK 7............................................................................................................................................6
7.1 Limitations of defences of infancy and consent....................................................................6
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
General Defences are defined as the set of 'excuses' or defences that an individual can
commence to escape accountability in tort only if their actions have qualified a particular set of
conditions that are associated with these defences (Adjorlolo, Agboli and Chan, 2016). In this
assignment, various kinds of defences are discussed including defence of insanity, automatism,
duress, mistake, intoxication and consent and infancy defences. Apart from this, effectiveness of
M'Naghten rules in establishing insanity defence and scope of automatism, duress of threat,
circumstance, necessity and self defence is defined. Difference between basic and specific intent
crimes and limitations of consent and infancy defences are discussed in this report.
TASK 1
1.1 Difference between “general defences” and “complete defences”
Defence refers as an action which is taken to protect something or someone against
attack. It includes General defence and Complete defence which can be understand by the below
mentioned differences:
General Defence Complete defence
 It is a defence that is utilized against an
individual who commits crime.
Judgement given by court may be or
not be in defendant's favour.
 In general defence, the type of order
made by judge will depend on nature of
mental state of defendant.
 In this, if accused fails to manifest its
defence then he/ she is liable for
punishment either fully or partially.
 It is a factual argument or circumstance
that, if proven; the litigation will end up
in favour of defendant.
 It is a kind of defence that invalidate an
entire claim in opposition to the
defendant.
 In this, if accused succeed in
manifesting its defence, then he/ she
will be acquitted or will often resolve
the complete case in defendant's favour.
It can be said that both are different from each other but they have both are related with
the defence that how defendant can do better so that positive results can be obtained. The role of
judges increases in both the case as they are required to judges the situation that which one is
general and which is critical.
1

TASK 2
2.1 Effectiveness of M’Naghten rules in establishing a defence of insanity
M'Naghten rule refers as a test that is applied to determine whether an individual who is
charged of a crime was normal during its commission and thus criminally responsible for
wrongdoing (M'Naghten Rule, 2018). It is a test that is conducted for checking criminal insanity.
Court use one of various legal tests to identify whether a person actually is legally insane, relying
on Jurisdiction. These tests includes M'Naghten Rule, Model Penal Code Test, Irresistible
Impulse Test and Durham Rule. This rule does have the capacity of producing the effective result
through its different approaches. M'Naghten Rule proves to be effective in founding a defence of
insanity as it facilitates court in taking fair decisions against criminals by applying below defined
procedures:
 In this, criminal is going through several tests that helps in identifying whether a person
is suffering from any kind of mental disorder or not.
 Evidence is provided to show that criminal defendant is not aware regarding nature of act
which they are performing because of mental illness.
 At last, this rule helps in finding out whether the person is aware about the actions they
performed was right or not (Reed and Bohlander, 2016).
So, application of this rule is effective in determining whether an individual is in the state
of differentiating between what is right or wrong or he/ she is mentally ill. This is one of the best
way through which it can be find that whether the person who have attempted the criminal
activity must be given punishment or not.
2

(Source: Defence of Insanity,2018)
TASK 3
3.1 Comparison of defences of automatism and insanity
Automatism:
It refers as an act that is committed during unconsciousness state or grossly impaired
consciousness. It is a rarely utilized criminal defence that is related to mental state of defendant.
Automatism defence argues that individual can not be held accountable for their actions as they
haven't any conscious knowledge of it.
Insanity:
It is a mental disorder defence or defence by excuse which argues that defendant is not
accountable for his/ her actions because of persistent or an episodic psychiatric disorder at the
time when criminal act is committed (Dinstein, 2017).
Comparison between defence of insanity and automatism are defined below:
Defence of Insanity Defence of Automatism
 Defence of Insanity is applicable only  Automatism defence is applied when a
3
Illustration 1: Defence of Insanity

when an individual is suffering from
mental disorder and is not accountable
for the actions committed by them.
 It can be lifted by both prosecution and
defendant and strain of proof is on
accused only.
 It refers as an excuse to get free from
any kind of legal compliance.
person committed an act in state of
unconsciousness or due to convulsion
or reflex action which means action is
performed unintentionally.
 It can be raised only by accused and the
stress for proof is upon prosecution.
 It is a defence act to prove that accused
did not actually committed crime.
They both are interrelated with each other and in both of the situation it has been found
that person who have committed the crime will not be penalised in any the situation because of
their lack of mental stability.
3.2 Scope of defence of automatism
Defence of automatism excludes accountability by negating the presence of actus reus
that uniquely enable it to be a defence to strict and conventional liability offences. Strict
automatism is most commonly utilized as defence in opposition to strict liability offences due to
denial of actus reus. There are numerous reasons why an individual may go in automatism state,
involving hyperglycaemia or dissociation (Rix, 2015). On the other hand, Unconsciousness is
the denial of mens rea defence, which is easy to prove and therefore mainly utilized for non strict
liability crimes. For instance, in homicidal sleepwalking case, an illegal act is not denied but,
intent to kill is. An accused will typically be confused and perplexed and will not mask the
episode.
Automatism is utilised as a defence in opposition to unconscious involuntary action but
sometimes criminals used it as an excuse due to which various issues arise. Thus, its scope is
restricted by court through categorized it into 2 varieties: sane and insane. The situation is
considered as insane automatism when the reason of committing criminal act is mental illness.
Whereas, when accused attempt crime unintentionally due to external factor or threat then it is
considered as sane automatism. For instance: If an individual harm other person but he don't
know about what is right or wrong due to his/ her mental illness, then it is considered as insane
automatism. On the other hand, when a person suffering from disease like hypoglycaemia and
commits accident unintentionally while driving, then it is considered as sane automatism. In this,
it can be understood that situations are being judged for the purpose of finding the actual person
4

who have committed the crime and who should be penalised for the criminal activity that has
taken place.
TASK 4
4.1 Evaluation of scope of defences
Duress is defined as an act of committing an illegal action against the will of an
individual or making someone perform an action by using coercion, threat or other illicit means
(Joyce, 2015). Defences that comes under duress are defined below:
a) Duress of threats
It refers to a situation when an individual is forced or threatened to commit a particular
criminal action. It is applied only when a person is threatened for body injury or death that
creates a fear in defendant. For instance: If a person threaten other individual or force him or her
to attempt murder otherwise they will kill their family members. In this case, individual can use
Duress of threat in defending themselves in court and prove oneself innocent. If person can be
able to prove the actual reason behind the crime then there is high possible that legal action will
not be taken against them. The burden of proof is always upon the person who have committed
the crime.
b) Duress of circumstance, necessity and self defence
This duress is applied when an individual attempt an illegal act which is necessary to
perform under some situations so as to remove imminent threat of injury or death to themselves
as well as another person (Bond, 2015). For instance: In case, if life of other person is in danger
as someone is trying to injure them. Then, according to the necessity of situation; individual
perform criminal action to protect the life of accused which is illegal. In this case, Duress of
circumstance, necessity and self defence can be used by an individual to defend himself/ herself
in court.
TASK 5
5.1 Evaluation of mistake as a defence
Criminal accused argues in some situations that the crime is not committed by them
intentionally but there are some circumstances behind its commitment. In this case, mistake as a
defence can be utilized by criminal in order to protect themselves from any kind of punishment
regarding criminal act for which they are not accountable. There are some situations in which
mistake as a defence is applicable:
5

Mistake by fact:
It refers to a situation in which the fact is misunderstood by an individual and committed
some illegal actions that is considered as crime in legal context (Robinson, 2017). For instance, if
a property is purchased by an individual which includes illegal practices and individual do not
have any knowledge regarding it. In this case, he/ she can put his/ her concerns in court for
defending themselves. In this situation, the person who have committed the crime is required to
give justification that what were the main reason behind attempting the crime and if they can be
able to do the same then none of the legal actions are taken against them.
Mistake by law:
It is the situation in which accused argues that they were not aware or they don't have any
knowledge regarding the existence of a specific law. There are limited situations in which
mistake by law is applicable. Otherwise, this defence gets rejected by court as it is the moral
responsibility of every individual to be aware regarding laws of respective country. For instance:
while a accused will be unable to claim he/ she was not have knowledge that murder was a
crime, then he/ she may argue that they do not have awareness about obscure traffic law. Here,
court do not declare the best possible decided as they were unable to read the situation in
appropriate manner.
TASK 6
6.1 Use of voluntary and involuntary intoxication as a defence
Defence of Intoxication is utilized when criminal accused for committing an illegal act is
in the state of unconsciousness because of alcohol or drugs intake by them either unintentionally
or by choice. In this condition, intoxication defence can be used by an individual but its
application is limited as it rely on the situation that whether intoxication is involuntary or
voluntary (Thompson Jr and Georges, 2014).
Involuntary Intoxication:
It occurs when an individual is forced to consume alcohol or drugs. Involuntary
intoxication can be utilized in situation when drugs are taken by individual unintentionally and
committed the crime. In this, person can use this defence to prove that he/ she is unable to
understand their actions during that time. Under this situation, must of the time person who have
forced to take alcohol are being punished.
Voluntary Intoxication:
6

It occurs when accused intakes alcohol or drugs intentionally and after that, commit a
particular crime, then voluntary intoxication is applied. Its application is not easy and is allowed
for certain illegal acts. In this situation person is realised just because of the mistake which had
been committed by the court and other authorised panel.
6.2 Difference between specific and basic intent crimes
In performing any criminal action, there are some intentions behind or sometimes these
are committed recklessly (Shaw, 2015). Defence availability is based on intent level of
committing illegal action. Difference between general and specific intent crime are defined
below:
Specific Intent Crime Basic Intent Crime
 This crime needs offender who has a
purpose or intent at the time of
committed crime.
 It occurs when accused commit an
action with intent to produce result.
 Murder, burglary, robbery, theft etc. are
the acts involved in specific intent
crime.
 These crimes are sophisticated with
high culpability and outcome in severe
punishment.
 In this, an intent is required to perform
a particular action. Offender does not
require to have another intention.
 Actions are performed by defendant
without having any knowledge about
result.
 Negligent homicide, arson, assault,
solicitation etc. are the acts included in
it.
 In comparison of specific intent,
general intent is easy to prove and
results in less punishment.
TASK 7
7.1 Limitations of defences of infancy and consent
Defence of consent:
This defence is utilized to protect accused from liabilities in relation to its criminal act. It
is used when criminal action has been performed, but was resulted from certain situations and
offender was in opposition to the occurrence of crime (Ploug and Holm, 2015). Consent defence
7

is not applied to crime instead is limited to mens rea which involves criminal damage, theft,
bodily harm etc.
Defence of infancy:
This defence is utilized to protect accused from their liability in relation to criminal
attempt by depicting the reason of accused's young age. U.S. Statutory legislation has replaced
infancy law and limit defence in below mentioned ways:
 Children less then age of 7 years are held in category of doli incapax.
 Children aged between 7-14 have understanding of their acts and are able to develop
crime intent.
CONCLUSION
As per the above mentioned report, it has been concluded that general defence involves
various defences such as defence of automatism, insanity, intoxication, duress of threat,
circumstance, necessity and self defence. Criminal action can be performed by an individual
either by intention or unintentionally in which individual can use different defences to prove
themselves innocent in court.
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.
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.
8

Robinson, P. H., 2017. General Defences. In The Structure and Limits of Criminal Law (pp. 97-
154). Routledge.
Rix, K. J., 2015. The common law defence of automatism: A quagmire for the psychiatrist.
BJPsych Advances. 21(4). pp.242-250.
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
M'Naghten Rule, 2018. [Online]. Available through: <https://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/M%27Naghten+Rule>
9