Sane automatism requires total destruction of voluntary

AG's ref #2 (1992) control

The grounds for self defence need to be honestly believed,
Beckford v R (1988) but not reasonably believed
Prosecution may raise insanity in response to a plea of
automatism; any mental disorder manifesting in violence is
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963) `insanity', not automatism
Jury should be given an opportunity to consider whether
defendant's refusal to answer questions has reasonable
Condron v UK (2001) grounds
s.16 deception requires that dishonesty coincides with the
intention to deprive; the dishonesty must be cause of the
Davies v Flackett (1972) deprivation
DPP v Lynch (1975) Duress may be a defence to accomplice to murder
Voluntary intoxication not a defence to crime requiring no
DPP v Majewski (1977) specific intent
A mistaken, genuine belief in consent excuses, even if not
DPP v Morgan (1975) based on any reasonable grounds
Edwards v Ddin (1976) Making off without payment is not theft
Elliot v C (1983) Caldwell test for recklessness is entirely objective
For an indecent assault, the action need not be hostile or
Faulkner v Talbot (1981) agressive
Hyam v DPP (1974) `Intention' found in foresight of probable harm
Low self control not a characteristc of the ordinary person in
Luc Theit Than v R (1996) provocation (but see R v Smith(2000))
Murray v UK (1996) Right to silence not an absolute right under Art. 6
Insanity is a `defect of reason arising out of a disease of the
mind' such that the accused did not know the `nature and
M'Naghten's case (1843) quality' of the act, or did not know that it was wrong
For gross negligence manslaughter, it is for the jury to
decide whether the defendant's acts were bad enough to be
R v Adomako (1995) criminal
`Rough horseplay' is defence to charge of assault, even if
R v Aitken (1992) very dangerous
Conviction for conspiracy possible even if the conspired
R v Anderson (1986) outcome is not desired, or even possible
Constructive manslaughter requires a demonstrable unlawful
R v Arobieke (1988) act
R v Becerra and Cooper (1975) Withdrawal from joint enterprise requires timely notice

Provocation should not take into account physical

R v Bedder (1954) pecularities of the defendant (but see R v Camplin (1978))
Unwillingness to fight is not essential for defence of self
R v Bird (1985) defence, but should be taken into account by jury
R v Blaue (1975) Defendant takes his victim as he finds him
Whether consent negates assault depends on the harm
R v Boyea (1992) (objectively) likely to be caused
R v Brown (1993) Consent no defence to sadomasochistic injuries
For diminished responsibility, `abnormality of mind' winder
R v Byrne (1960) than M'Naghten insanity

R v Camplin (1978)
R v Cato (1975)
R v Chan-Fook (1994)
R v Church (1965)
R v Clarence (1889)
R v Collins (1972)
R v Burstow and Ireland (1997)
R v Caldwell (1982)
R v Cheshire (1991)
R v Clear (1967)
R v Court (1989)
R v Cunninghman (1957)
R v Dear (1996)
R v Doukas (1977)
R v Dudley and Stevens (1884)
R v Duffy (1965)
R v Dunnington (1983)
R v Eason (1971)
R v Fagan (1969)
R v Fotheringham (1988)
R v Garwood (1987)
R v Geddes (1996)
R v Gemmell (2003)
R v Ghosh (1982)
R v Gillard (1988)
R v Gomez (1993)
R v Graham (1981)
Provocation can take into account age and gender as
characteristics of the `reasonable man'
Heroin is a `noxious thing'; injection of heroin can give rise to
constructive manslaughter, even with consent
Psychiatric illness can amount to bodily harm
Constructive manslaughter requires mens rea as to the
dangerous act
Mistake as to circumstances of act do not vitiate consent
For a trespassory entry, some part of the defendant's body
must enter the building
Psychiatric illness can amount to bodily harm
`Recklessness' is assessed objectively in criminal damage
(now overruled by R v G)
Negligent medical treatment does not break the chain of
causation; defendant's acts must a significant contribution.
`menaces' in blackmail must be sufficient to sway a person
of reasonable firmness, even if the victim himself was not
swayed
Assault is indecent if defendant believes it indecent, or it is
obviously indecent
`Recklessness' is a state of mind of the defendant
Self-neglect does not break chain of causation; suicide does,
but not if caused by the defendant
Obtaining by deception: deception must operate on the mind
of the victim
Necessity no defence to murder
Self defence no defence when defendant not attacked, but
prevention of crime might be
It is an offence to aid and abet an attempt, but not to attempt
to aid and abet
Attempted theft not made out if indictment too narrow
Actus reus may extend beyond original act
Self-induced intoxication does not justify mistake as to
consent in rape
`menaces' in blackmail must be sufficient to sway a person
of reasonable firmness, or a particular timid victim if the
defendant new of his timidity
For attempt, evidence must be adduced to show that
defendant had started to implement the offence
Caldwell test for recklessness affirmed (now overruled by R
v G)
`Dishonesty' is based on the defendant's understanding of
the standards of ordinary people
`Administration' of a `noxious thing' does not require physical
contact
`Appropriation' can occur even if the victim consents
Duress requires a `sober person of reasonable firmness' to
fear death or serious injury
 For an attempt, the defendant must have `embarked on the
R v Gullefer (1986) crime'
Whether force was used `at the time of the theft' is a
R v Hale (1978) question for the jury
Using a false coin in a machine is not a deception, but it is a
R v Hands (1887) larceny
Stress and anxiety are not `external factors' that can give
R v Hennessey (1989) rise to a defence of automatism
R v Hinks (2000) Absolute title in civil law does not defeat `appropriation'
The standard for duress as a defence does not depend on
R v Horne (1994) the characteristics of the defendant

R v Howe (1977) Duress is not a defence to murder or accomplice to murder

Ommission my be culpable where the defendant has
R v Instan (1893) assumed a duty of care
Entry to premises is `as a trespasser' if it is for the purposes
R v Jones and Smith (1976) of theft
Negligent medical treatment might break the chain of
R v Jordan (1956) causation if it exceptionally bad
`Intention' is evidenced by, but not determined by, foresight
R v Hancock and Shankland (1986) of harm
Obtaining work by deception is an offence if the deception is
R v King (1986) the operative case

R v Kingston (1994) Involuntary intoxication not a defence if intent still present

Constructive manslaughter requires an unlawful act; the
R v Lamb (1967) mens rea for the unlawful act must be present
Presenting a credit card without authority to use
misrepresents that defendant is authorised; unauthorised
R v Lambie (1967) credit cards are the same as unauthorised cheques
R v Lawrence (1972) `Appropriation' can occur even if victim consents
Whether a substance is `noxious' is a question of fact and
R v Marcus (1981) degree
Duress of circumstances may apply when the threat is not
R v Martin (1989) against the defendant
Woollin direction for intention does not compel jury to accept
that foresight of virtually certain harm is determinative, it only
R v Matthews (2003) entitles the jury to do so
Ommission to act may be culpable if duty to act results from
R v Miller (1982) defendant's own actions
`Intention' found in foresight that harm is a `natural
R v Moloney (1985) consequence'
`Maliciously' in assault offences means only `intentionly or
R v Mowatt (1967) recklessly'
Appropriation in theft does not require assumption of all the
R v Morris (1983) rights of an owner, only some
R v Neddrick (1986) `Intention' is as defined in Hancock and Shankland
`Consent' is different to `acquiescence', but ordinarily this is
R v Olugboja (1981) not important to the jury
For self defence, the defendant must (subjectively) believe
R v Owino (1995) the force was (objectively) reasonable
R v Pittwood (1902)
R v Preddy (1996)
R v Reid (1992)
R v Richardson (Diane) (1998)
R v Richardson (Nigel) (1998)
R v Roberts (1971)
R v Rozeik (1995)
R v Satnam v Kewal (1983)
R v Savage and Parmenter (1991)
R v Shepherd (1987)
R v Shivpuri (1986)
R v Slingsby (1992)
R v Smith (2000)
R v Steer (1987)
R v Stone and Dobinson (1976)
R v Tabassum (1889)
R v Weller (2003)
R v Willer (1986)
R v Williams (Gladstone) (1983)
R v Wilson (1996)
R v Woolin (1998)
Liability for ommission may arise out of contractual obligation
Obtaining a cheque by deception is not `obtaining propery
by deception' because the thing-in-action represented by the
cheque always belongs to the payee
Caldwell test for recklessness is entirely objective, but a
reasonable person may overlook an obvious risk by being
distracted
For purposes of consent, mistake as to qualifications not
mistake as to identity
Voluntary intoxication no defence to assault, but may be
defence where there is a drunken belief in consent
Causation in assault found if events were reasonably
forseeable
Obtaining by deception: if the person deceived knows of the
fraud, then obtaining is not by deception
A mistaken, genuine belief in consent excuses, even if not
based on any reasonable grounds
s.47 OAPA requires mens rea of assault
Duress no defence if defendant puts himself into a criminal
conspiracy where threats are likely
No defence to a charge of attempt that the substantive
offence is actually impossible to commit
Whether consent negates assault depends on the harm
(anticipated) likely to be caused
Jury should consider all aspects of the defendant when
assessing whether his response to provocation was
reasonable
`Dangerous damage' under s.1(2) CDA requires intention or
recklessness towards danger caused by the damage, not by
the way it is caused
Ommission my be culpable where the defendant has
assumed a duty of care
Victims' mistake as to circumstances of act may vitiate
consent
Jury should consider all aspects of the defendant when
assessing whether his response to provocation was
reasonable, including irrational jealousy
There is a defence of duress of circumstances, if D is placed
in immediate danger
Action in prevention of crime justified on the basis of
defendent's honestly held belief
Consent a defence to s.20 offence if it is classed as
`adornment'
`Intention' found in forsight that harm is virtually certain