R v Kingston
Where D was unaware that he had consumed alcohol/drugs -OR- he suffered from an uncontrollable addiction, he will escape liability provided he lacked the MR for the offence
DPP v Majewski
R v Graham
D will be able to rely on duress of threats where he reasonably believed that EITHER he OR another was under threat of death/serious injury -AND- a reasonable person would have responded in the same way
R v Bowen
Relevant characteristics ascribed to the reasonable person are:
s3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 - Self-defence
D may use reasonable force in the circumstances to:
R v Bird
Self-defence may be preemptive
R v Williams (Gladstone)
D is judged on the need for/degree of force as he honestly believed necessary/reasonable, even if his belief was unreasonable/mistaken
M’Naughten Rules
D may plead insanity where he was suffering from a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind -AND- this meant he was unaware of EITHER/OR:
R v Clarke
Defect of reason must be involuntary/uncontrollable
R v Sullivan
Disease need only affect the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding
Bratty
D may be able to plead automatism if he suffered a complete loss of control owing to an external cause that was not self-induced
R v Bailey
Diabetic fit arising by failure to take appropriate medication amounts to a self-induced cause
Infancy