Criminal Law Principles Flashcards

What is the M'Naghten Rules defence of insanity?

Answer: At the time of the act, the defendant was suffering from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason so as not to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong

The M'Naghten Rules (1843) provide a defence where, due to a disease of the mind, the defendant had such a defect of reason that they either did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know that what they were doing was wrong.

What is 'automatism' as a defence in criminal law?

Answer: An involuntary act done without conscious control where the mind does not direct the act

Automatism is a complete defence where the defendant's act was wholly involuntary — the mind did not direct the muscular movement. It requires an external cause (such as a blow to the head). Internal causes give rise to the insanity defence instead.

What is 'self-defence' and when is it available?

Answer: A complete defence where the defendant used reasonable force to defend themselves, another, or property

Self-defence (at common law and s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) is a complete defence where the defendant used force that was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances as they genuinely believed them to be.

What is the 'intoxication' defence in criminal law?

Answer: Voluntary intoxication is only a defence to specific intent crimes where it negates the required intent; it is no defence to basic intent crimes

Voluntary intoxication can negate the mens rea of specific intent offences (e.g., murder), potentially reducing liability (e.g., to manslaughter). It provides no defence to basic intent offences (DPP v Majewski [1977]).

What is 'criminal damage' under the Criminal Damage Act 1971?

Answer: Intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse

S.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 criminalises intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another, without lawful excuse.

What is the mens rea of 'recklessness' in English criminal law following R v G [2003]?

Answer: Subjective recklessness: the defendant was aware of an unjustifiable risk and took it anyway

Following R v G [2003] (which overruled Caldwell), recklessness is subjective: the defendant must be personally aware of an unjustifiable risk and go on to take it. Purely objective recklessness (Caldwell) was abolished.