1. Starter:
Can you identify the
case?
A little birdie tells me Not so glad to be a
it’s not such a great
idea to go to your ex’s
passer by in that
birthday situation
We’ed only be Oh, chuck, I carn’t
Oww. No way was
gunning for them if believe that that’s a
that justified.
they don’t pay. good idea
Hands up might still
You broke my Whose name is on
be lethal (if you’re
heart... I’ll break the paper?
the right sort of
yours.
person).

2. How good is the current law?
Student Task:
At the back of the handout there are
two articles covering the recent changes
to the law and the issues raised by the
issues of self defence. Have a read of
them and then complete the grid in your
handout.
Aiming for a better grade?
Use a case to develop your
response!

3. Has anything changed? Student Task
Have a look at the new
act and the very recent
changes (in bold!)
Complete the tasks
down the side to show
your understanding of
the topic.

4. Consolidate that AO1!

5. Section B Questions:
Bringing it all together!

6. What issues are you going to
cover?
Character: Alan Bradley Carol
Offences
Potential
defence(s)

7. Planning your response
Definitions
and cases...
Application to D..
Do they have
everything
required?

8. What should it look like?
Alan may be able to argue a defence of automatism to the
gash on the cheek, which would provide him with a complete
defence to his actions, resulting in acquittal. Automatism is
defined as an act done by the body without control of the
mind, such as a spasm or reflex. This definition comes from
the case of Bratty, where D suffered from epilepsy and
strangled V with her own tights. The courts have further held
in Quick, that it must be caused by an external origin, such as
a blow to the head or as in Quick, injecting medication. Here
Alan has a ‘sneezing fit’, this would suggest that it is caused by
an external reaction and it would appear to be a reflex,
causing the glass to fly out of his hand. This interpretation was
confirmed by the case of Whoolley, where D successfully used
a sneezing fit as a defence to a criminal act. The fact that it is a
fit and that he has more than one sneeze implies that he has
lost total control, which is a requirement of the defence, as he
cannot form the mens rea. So, unless he knew that he might
have this reaction in the pub, it would seem that Alan can
successfully argue the defence.

9. What did the examiner
have to say?
This question’s new format and was both popular and successful. Relatively few candidates wrote at length
about the non fatal offences, with most concentrating on the defences which were the focus of the scenario.
Automatism was usually well handled, with candidates able to explain key cases such as Hill v Baxter, Whoolley
and Quick and Paddison before accurately and correctly applying them.
Insanity was less confidently explained and although there was widespread reference to the M’Naghten Rules
their detail was often only vaguely stated and using cases such as Sullivan and Hennessy did not always lead
candidates to the conclusion that the defence of insanity would be available to Bradley, even if he was reckless
in not taking his epilepsy medication.
The defence of intoxication revealed a good number of candidates to be unclear on the crucial difference
between the voluntary and involuntary limbs of the defence in terms of application to Carol’s situation. Key
cases such as Kingston were not always mentioned, with a great deal of time being spent on cases such as
Majewski and Lipman.
Self defence was often identified but lacked relevant detail, although it was heartening to see a good number of
candidates refer to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Some used cases such as Palmer and Clegg
well whilst others were more colloquial in their application and some wrote about mistake rather than self
defence.
Candidates who identified all the relevant defences were able to reach level 3 for AO2 and then move up
through the mark bands depending on their skills of application with the aim of reaching a logical and
appropriate conclusion.

10. Plenary:
Answer one of the following
questions...
A What impact have recent reforms had on the law
on self defence?
B Evaluate the role of mistake in self defence.
C Describe how the law treats the ‘duty to retreat’
in the law of self defence
D Explain the difference between public and
private defence.
E
Which two elements must D prove to
successfully argue self-defence?