Introduction

Facing criminal charges can be a daunting and stressful experience. However, it is crucial to understand that being charged with an offence does not necessarily mean that you will be found guilty. The criminal law in New South Wales (NSW) recognises a range of defenses that can be raised to refute or mitigate criminal charges. These defences, when successfully argued, can lead to an acquittal, reduced charges, or a lighter sentence.

In this comprehensive guide, we will explore the various defences available to those facing criminal charges in NSW. We will delve into the legal basis for each defence, the burden of proof, and the specific elements that must be established to rely on these defences successfully. Additionally, we will discuss the circumstances under which each defence may be applicable and provide hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how these defences operate in practice.

By gaining a thorough understanding of the defences available, those facing criminal charges can make informed decisions about their case and work effectively with their legal representatives to achieve the best possible outcome. Moreover, this knowledge can help individuals understand their rights and the legal avenues available to them when confronted with criminal accusations.

Throughout this guide, we will also highlight the importance of seeking experienced legal advice when considering raising a defence to a criminal charge. Criminal defence lawyers can provide invaluable guidance, assess the strengths and weaknesses of your case, and develop a tailored strategy to present your defence effectively in court.

Complete vs Partial Defences

When discussing defences to criminal charges, it is essential to understand the distinction between complete and partial defences. This classification is based on the impact a successful defence will have on the outcome of a criminal case.

Definition of complete and partial defences

A complete defence, if successfully raised and accepted by the court, will result in an outright acquittal. In other words, when a complete defence is established, the accused is found not guilty of the offence charged, and the matter is concluded. Complete defences are based on the premise that the accused's actions were legally justified or excused, and therefore, no criminal liability should attach.

On the other hand, a partial defence does not lead to an acquittal but instead reduces the severity of the offence or the potential sentence. Partial defences are typically raised in cases where the accused has committed an unlawful act but argues that there were mitigating circumstances that should be considered. If a partial defence is accepted, the accused may be found guilty of a lesser offence or receive a more lenient sentence.

Implications of each type of defence

The implications of raising a complete or partial defence can be significant. A complete defence offers the possibility of avoiding a criminal conviction altogether, which can have far-reaching consequences for an individual's personal and professional life. An acquittal means that the accused can maintain a clean criminal record and avoid the stigma and collateral consequences associated with a conviction.

Partial defences, while not resulting in an acquittal, can still have a substantial impact on the outcome of a case. By reducing the severity of the offence or the potential sentence, partial defences can help mitigate the long-term consequences of a criminal conviction. For example, a murder charge reduced to manslaughter based on a partial defence may result in a shorter prison sentence or the possibility of parole.

Table showing which defences are complete or partial

To provide a clear overview of the defences discussed in this guide, the following table categorises each defence as either complete or partial:

DefenceType of DefenceSelf-DefenceCompleteDuressCompleteNecessityCompleteDefence of AutomatismCompleteClaim of RightCompleteHonest and Reasonable Mistake of FactCompleteProvocation (now Extreme Provocation)PartialMental IllnessCompleteIntoxicationPartialConsentCompleteSubstantial Impairment due to Abnormality of MindPartial

Understanding the distinction between complete and partial defences is crucial when navigating the criminal law in NSW. It allows individuals facing criminal charges to make informed decisions about which defences may be appropriate to raise in their case and the potential outcomes they can expect. In the following sections, we will explore each defence in detail, providing a comprehensive understanding of their legal basis, requirements, and application in NSW criminal law.

Self-Defence in NSW Criminal Law

Self-defence is a complete defence that can be raised in cases where an individual is accused of committing a violent offence, such as assault or homicide. If successfully argued, self-defence can result in an acquittal, as it justifies the use of force in specific circumstances.

Definition and legal basis

Self-defence is based on the principle that a person has the right to protect themselves, others, or their property from unlawful harm or threats. In NSW, the defence of self-defence is codified in section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900. This section states that a person is not criminally responsible for an offence if they carry out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

Burden of proof

When self-defence is raised, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. The prosecution must disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the accused does not need to prove that they acted in self-defence; rather, the prosecution must establish that the accused's actions did not constitute self-defence.

Elements that must be proven

For self-defence to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The accused believed that their conduct was necessary to defend themselves, another person, or their property.
2. The accused's actions were a reasonable response in the circumstances as they perceived them.

The court will consider the accused's subjective belief and the objective reasonableness of their response in light of the circumstances.

When self-defence can be used

Self-defence can be raised in various situations, including:

• Defending oneself or another person from physical harm or the threat of harm.
• Preventing the unlawful detention of oneself or another person.
• Protecting property from being taken, destroyed, damaged, or interfered with.
• Preventing or terminating a trespass on one's property.

However, the force used in self-defence must be proportionate to the threat faced and must not exceed what is reasonably necessary to address the situation.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating self-defence

Consider the following scenario: John is walking home late at night when he is confronted by an armed assailant who demands his wallet. Fearing for his life, John quickly grabs a nearby bottle and strikes the assailant, causing him to drop the weapon and flee. In this case, John may be able to raise self-defence if he is charged with assault. He believed that his actions were necessary to protect himself from the imminent threat of harm, and his response could be considered reasonable given the circumstances.

Self-defence is a crucial defence that recognises an individual's right to protect themselves and others from unlawful harm. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of self-defence in NSW criminal law, those facing criminal charges can better assess whether this defence may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Duress in NSW Criminal Law

Duress is a complete defence that can be raised when an individual commits an offence because they were compelled to do so by threats of death or serious harm to themselves or another person. If duress is successfully argued, it can lead to an acquittal, as the accused's actions are considered to be the result of external pressure rather than their own free will.

Definition and legal basis

Duress is a common law defence that applies when an individual commits an offence because they were threatened with death or serious harm, and the threat was sufficient to override their normal resistance. The defence of duress is based on the principle that a person should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they had no reasonable alternative but to comply with the threats made against them.

Burden of proof

When duress is raised as a defence, the burden of proof lies with the accused. The accused must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that they acted under duress. This means that the accused must show that it is more likely than not that they committed the offence because of the threats made against them.

Elements that must be proven

For duress to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The accused faced a threat of death or serious harm to themselves or another person.
2. The threat was of such a nature that a person of ordinary firmness and strength of will, in the accused's position, would have yielded to it.
3. The accused reasonably believed that the threat would be carried out if they did not comply.
4. The accused had no reasonable means of escaping the threat or avoiding the harm threatened.
5. The accused committed the offence because of the threat and not for any other reason.

When duress can be used

Duress can be raised as a defence to most criminal offences, except for murder and certain other serious offences such as treason and piracy. The defence may be applicable in situations where an individual is forced to participate in criminal activities, such as drug trafficking or robbery, due to threats made against them or their loved ones.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating duress

Consider the following scenario: Sarah is a bank teller who is approached by a group of armed robbers. The robbers threaten to harm Sarah's family if she does not assist them in stealing money from the bank. Fearing for her family's safety, Sarah complies with the robbers' demands and helps them access the bank's vault. In this case, Sarah may be able to raise the defence of duress if she is charged with theft or robbery. She acted under the threat of serious harm to her family, the threat was sufficient to override her normal resistance, and she had no reasonable means of escaping or avoiding the harm threatened.

Duress is an important defence in NSW criminal law that recognises the impact of external threats on an individual's actions. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of duress, those facing criminal charges can better assess whether this defence may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Necessity in NSW Criminal Law

Necessity is a complete defence that can be raised when an individual commits an offence in order to avoid a greater harm or evil. If necessity is successfully argued, it can result in an acquittal, as the accused's actions are considered to be justified given the circumstances.

Definition and legal basis

The defence of necessity is based on the principle that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they had no reasonable choice but to break the law in order to prevent a greater harm from occurring. In NSW, necessity is a common law defence that has been developed through case law.

Burden of proof

When necessity is raised as a defence, the burden of proof lies with the accused. The accused must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that they acted out of necessity. This means that the accused must show that it is more likely than not that they committed the offence in order to avoid a greater harm.

Elements that must be proven

For necessity to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The accused faced a clear and imminent danger or threat of harm.
2. The accused reasonably believed that their actions were necessary to avoid the harm.
3. The harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm caused by the accused's actions.
4. The accused had no reasonable alternative to committing the offence.
5. The accused ceased their unlawful conduct as soon as the danger or threat had passed.

When necessity can be used

Necessity can be raised as a defence to most criminal offences, but it is typically limited to situations where the accused's actions were necessary to prevent serious harm or danger. Examples of situations where necessity may be applicable include breaking into a property to rescue someone from a fire, or exceeding the speed limit to rush an injured person to the hospital.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating necessity

Consider the following scenario: Daniel is driving home late at night when he comes across a serious car accident. One of the vehicles is on fire, and the driver is trapped inside. Daniel breaks the window of the burning car and pulls the driver to safety, but in doing so, he damages the vehicle. In this case, Daniel may be able to raise the defence of necessity if he is charged with property damage. He faced a clear and imminent danger (the burning car), he reasonably believed that his actions were necessary to avoid harm to the trapped driver, the harm he sought to avoid (loss of life) was greater than the harm caused (property damage), and he had no reasonable alternative to breaking the window to rescue the driver.

Necessity is a defence in NSW criminal law that recognises that in certain extreme situations, an individual may have no choice but to break the law in order to prevent a greater harm. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of necessity, those facing criminal charges can better assess whether this defence may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Defence of Automatism in NSW Criminal Law

The defence of automatism is a complete defence that can be raised when an individual commits an offence while in a state of impaired consciousness, such that their actions are involuntary and outside of their control. If the defence of automatism is successfully argued, it can result in an acquittal, as the accused is considered to have acted without the requisite mental state for criminal responsibility.

Definition and legal basis

Automatism refers to a state of impaired consciousness where an individual's actions are involuntary and performed without the exercise of their will. In legal terms, the defence of automatism is a defence that negates the mental element (mens rea) required for most criminal offences. The defence of automatism is based on the principle that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they were not acting voluntarily or with conscious intent.

Burden of proof

When the defence of automatism is raised as a defence, the burden of proof initially lies with the accused to establish an evidentiary foundation for the defence. Once the accused has provided sufficient evidence to support the defence, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove the defence of automatism beyond a reasonable doubt.

Elements that must be proven

For the defence of automatism to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The accused was in a state of impaired consciousness at the time of the offence.
2. The accused's actions were involuntary and performed without the exercise of their will.
3. The state of the defence of automatism was caused by an external factor, such as a blow to the head, sleep disorders, or involuntary intoxication.
4. The accused's state of the defence of automatism was not self-induced or foreseeable.

When the defence of automatism can be used

The defence of automatism can be raised as a defence to most criminal offences that require a mental element (mens rea). However, it is a narrow defence that is only applicable in limited circumstances. Examples of situations where the defence of automatism may be relevant include sleepwalking, epileptic seizures, or involuntary intoxication (e.g., consuming a spiked drink unknowingly).

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating the defence of automatism

Consider the following scenario: Emily is attending a party where she consumes a drink that, unbeknownst to her, has been spiked with a strong hallucinogenic drug. As a result of the drug's effects, Emily enters a state of the defence of automatism and, while in this state, assaults another party-goer. In this case, Emily may be able to raise the defence of automatism if she is charged with assault. She was in a state of impaired consciousness caused by an external factor (the spiked drink), her actions were involuntary and performed without the exercise of her will, and her state of the defence of automatism was not self-induced or foreseeable.

The defence of automatism is a defence in NSW criminal law that recognises that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they were not acting voluntarily or with conscious intent. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of the defence of automatism, those facing criminal charges can better assess whether this defence may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Claim of Right in NSW Criminal Law

Claim of right is a complete defence that can be raised when an individual commits an offence while genuinely believing that they have a legal entitlement to the property or money in question. If claim of right is successfully argued, it can result in an acquittal, as the accused is considered to have acted without the requisite mental state for criminal responsibility.

Definition and legal basis

A claim of right refers to a situation where an individual honestly believes that they have a legal entitlement to certain property or money, even if that belief is mistaken. The defence of claim of right is based on the principle that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they were acting under a genuine belief that they had a legal right to the property or money in question.

Burden of proof

When claim of right is raised as a defence, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that once the accused has provided sufficient evidence to support the defence, the prosecution must establish that the accused did not have a genuine belief in their legal entitlement to the property or money.

Elements that must be proven

For claim of right to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The accused honestly believed that they had a legal entitlement to the property or money in question.
2. The accused's belief was genuinely held, even if it was mistaken or unreasonable.
3. The accused's belief was in relation to a specific piece of property or sum of money, not just a general moral entitlement.
4. The accused's actions were consistent with their belief in their legal entitlement.

When claim of right can be used

Claim of right can be raised as a defence to offences that involve the taking or possession of property, such as theft, larceny, or receiving stolen goods. It may also be applicable in cases involving the use of force to recover property, such as assault or robbery, if the accused genuinely believed they had a legal right to the property in question.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating claim of right

Consider the following scenario: Mark lends his lawnmower to his neighbour, Tom, for a week. When Mark goes to retrieve the lawnmower, Tom refuses to return it, claiming that Mark had given it to him as a gift. Mark, believing that he has a legal right to the lawnmower, enters Tom's garage and takes the lawnmower back. In this case, Mark may be able to raise the defence of claim of right if he is charged with theft or trespass. He honestly believed that he had a legal entitlement to the lawnmower, his belief was genuinely held, and his actions were consistent with his belief in his legal entitlement.

Claim of right is a defence in NSW criminal law that recognises that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they were acting under a genuine belief in their legal entitlement to the property or money in question. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of claim of right, those facing criminal charges can better assess whether this defence may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact in NSW Criminal Law

Honest and reasonable mistake of fact is a complete defence that can be raised when an individual commits an offence while under a mistaken but genuinely held belief about a factual situation. If honest and reasonable mistake of fact is successfully argued, it can result in an acquittal, as the accused is considered to have acted without the requisite mental state for criminal responsibility.

Definition and legal basis

An honest and reasonable mistake of fact refers to a situation where an individual holds a mistaken belief about a factual situation, and that belief is both genuinely held and reasonably formed based on the information available to them at the time. The defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is based on the principle that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they were acting under a mistaken but honestly and reasonably held belief.

Burden of proof

When honest and reasonable mistake of fact is raised as a defence, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that once the accused has provided sufficient evidence to support the defence, the prosecution must establish that the accused's mistaken belief was not honestly held or was not reasonable in the circumstances.

Elements that must be proven

For honest and reasonable mistake of fact to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The accused held a mistaken belief about a factual situation at the time of the offence.
2. The accused's mistaken belief was genuinely held.
3. The accused's mistaken belief was reasonable in the circumstances, based on the information available to them at the time.
4. If the accused's mistaken belief had been true, their actions would not have constituted a criminal offence.

When honest and reasonable mistake can be used

Honest and reasonable mistake of fact can be raised as a defence to offences that require a specific mental state (mens rea), such as intent or knowledge. It is particularly relevant in cases involving strict liability offences, where the prosecution is not required to prove fault on the part of the accused. Examples of situations where this defence may be applicable include mistakenly believing that a sexual partner is over the age of consent or mistakenly believing that a substance in one's possession is legal.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating honest and reasonable mistake

Consider the following scenario: Anna is at a bar and meets a young man, David, who tells her that he is 18 years old. Anna and David engage in consensual sexual activity. However, it later emerges that David was actually 15 years old at the time. In this case, Anna may be able to raise the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact if she is charged with a sexual offence involving a minor. She held a mistaken belief about David's age, her belief was genuinely held based on David's own statements, and her belief was reasonable in the circumstances. If David had been 18 years old as Anna believed, her actions would not have constituted a criminal offence.

Honest and reasonable mistake of fact is a defence in NSW criminal law that recognises that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if they were acting under a mistaken but honestly and reasonably held belief. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of this defence, those facing criminal charges can better assess whether it may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Provocation (now Extreme Provocation) in NSW Criminal Law

Provocation, now referred to as extreme provocation, is a partial defence that can be raised in cases of murder. If extreme provocation is successfully argued, it can result in a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder, as the accused's culpability is considered to be reduced due to the provocative circumstances.

Definition and legal basis

Extreme provocation is a partial defence that applies when an individual commits a fatal act while under the influence of a loss of self-control caused by the victim's provocative conduct. The defence of provocation is based on the principle that an individual's culpability for a killing should be reduced if they were acting under the influence of extreme provocation that would cause an ordinary person to lose self-control.

Changes introduced by the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014

In 2014, the Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act introduced significant changes to the defence of provocation in NSW. The Act replaced the common law defence of provocation with a new statutory defence of extreme provocation under section 23 of the Crimes Act 1900. The key changes include:

1. The provocative conduct must now constitute a serious indictable offence.
2. The provocative conduct must have caused the accused to lose self-control.
3. The provocative conduct must be such that it could have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control to the extent of intending to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm.
4. The defence is not available in cases where the provocative conduct was a non-violent sexual advance or where the accused incited the provocative conduct to provide an excuse for using violence.

Burden of proof

When extreme provocation is raised as a defence, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that once the accused has provided sufficient evidence to support the defence, the prosecution must establish that the accused's actions were not the result of extreme provocation.

Elements that must be proven

For extreme provocation to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The provocative conduct of the victim must have constituted a serious indictable offence.
2. The provocative conduct must have caused the accused to lose self-control.
3. The provocative conduct must have been such that it could have caused an ordinary person to lose self-control to the extent of intending to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm.
4. The accused must have acted in response to the provocative conduct before there was time for their loss of self-control to abate.

When extreme provocation can be used

Extreme provocation can only be raised as a defence to murder. It cannot be used as a defence to any other offence, including manslaughter. The defence is not available in cases where the provocative conduct was a non-violent sexual advance or where the accused incited the provocative conduct to provide an excuse for using violence.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating extreme provocation

Consider the following scenario: James comes home to find his wife, Sarah, in bed with another man. The man attacks James, beating him severely. In the heat of the moment, James grabs a nearby object and strikes the man, killing him. In this case, James may be able to raise the defence of extreme provocation if he is charged with murder. The provocative conduct (the assault) constituted a serious indictable offence, it caused James to lose self-control, and it could have caused an ordinary person in James' position to lose self-control to the extent of intending to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. James acted in response to the provocative conduct before there was time for his loss of self-control to abate.

Extreme provocation is a partial defence in NSW criminal law that recognises that an individual's culpability for a killing may be reduced if they were acting under the influence of extreme provocation. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of this defence, those facing murder charges can better assess whether it may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Mental Illness Defence in NSW Criminal Law

Mental illness is a complete defence that can be raised when an individual commits an offence while suffering from a mental condition that significantly impairs their ability to understand the nature of their actions or the rightness or wrongness of their conduct. If the mental illness defence is successfully argued, it can result in a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of mental illness," which may lead to the accused being detained in a mental health facility for treatment rather than being sentenced to imprisonment.

Definition and legal basis

The mental illness defence, also known as the insanity defence, is based on the principle that an individual should not be held criminally responsible for their actions if, at the time of the offence, they were suffering from a mental condition that significantly impaired their ability to understand the nature and quality of their actions or the rightness or wrongness of their conduct. In NSW, the mental illness defence is codified in section 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

Burden of proof

When the mental illness defence is raised, the burden of proof lies with the accused to establish the defence on the balance of probabilities. This means that the accused must prove that it is more likely than not that they were suffering from a mental illness that impaired their ability to understand the nature of their actions or the rightness or wrongness of their conduct at the time of the offence.

Elements that must be proven

For the mental illness defence to be established, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The accused was suffering from a mental illness or condition at the time of the offence.
2. The mental illness or condition impaired the accused's ability to understand the nature and quality of their actions or the rightness or wrongness of their conduct.
3. The impairment was so significant that it rendered the accused unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether their actions were right or wrong.

When the mental illness defence can be used

The mental illness defence can be raised in relation to any criminal offence, provided that the accused can establish that they were suffering from a mental illness or condition that significantly impaired their ability to understand the nature of their actions or the rightness or wrongness of their conduct at the time of the offence.

Consequences of a successful mental illness defence

If the mental illness defence is successfully argued, the court will deliver a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of mental illness." This verdict does not result in the accused being released unconditionally; instead, the court must determine whether the accused should be detained in a mental health facility for treatment or released into the community subject to conditions. The court's decision will be based on an assessment of the accused's mental state and the risk they pose to themselves or others.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating the mental illness defence

Consider the following scenario: Mary, who has a history of schizophrenia, experiences a severe psychotic episode during which she believes that her neighbour is an evil demon trying to harm her. Acting on this delusion, Mary attacks her neighbour with a knife, causing serious injuries. In this case, Mary may be able to raise the mental illness defence if she is charged with assault or attempted murder. If successful, the court would find her not guilty by reason of mental illness, and she would be detained in a mental health facility for treatment rather than being sentenced to imprisonment.

The mental illness defence in NSW criminal law recognises that individuals who commit offences while suffering from a mental condition that significantly impairs their ability to understand the nature of their actions or the rightness or wrongness of their conduct should not be held criminally responsible in the same way as those who commit offences with a sound mind. By understanding the legal basis, burden of proof, and elements of this defence, those facing criminal charges who have a history of mental illness can better assess whether it may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Intoxication Defence in NSW Criminal Law

Intoxication is a complex and limited defence that can be raised in certain circumstances when an individual commits an offence while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. While intoxication is not a complete defence, it may be used to argue that the accused did not have the requisite mental state (mens rea) for the offence charged.

Limited applicability as a defence

It is important to note that intoxication is not a widely applicable defence and is subject to several limitations. In most cases, voluntary intoxication (i.e., when an individual intentionally consumes alcohol or drugs) is not an acceptable defence. However, in some limited circumstances, evidence of intoxication may be used to argue that the accused did not have the necessary intent to commit the offence.

Burden of proof

When intoxication is raised as a defence, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite mental state for the offence, despite their intoxication. The accused may introduce evidence of their intoxication to cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

Elements that must be proven

For intoxication to be considered as a defence, the following elements must be established:

1. The accused was intoxicated at the time of the offence.
2. The intoxication was so significant that it impaired the accused's ability to form the specific intent required for the offence.
3. The offence charged is a "specific intent" crime, meaning that it requires proof of a particular mental state (e.g., intention, knowledge, or recklessness).

When intoxication can be used as a defence

Intoxication can only be used as a defence in limited circumstances, primarily when the offence charged is a "specific intent" crime. Examples of specific intent crimes include murder, assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and theft. In these cases, evidence of intoxication may be used to argue that the accused did not have the necessary mental state to commit the offence.

Intoxication cannot be used as a defence for "general intent" crimes, which only require proof of a voluntary act (actus reus) and do not have a specific mental state requirement. Examples of general intent crimes include sexual assault and manslaughter.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating the intoxication defence

Consider the following scenario: John, who has a history of alcohol abuse, consumes a large quantity of alcohol at a party. Later that night, he gets into an argument with another party-goer, Mark, and hits him with a bottle, causing serious injuries. John is charged with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, a specific intent crime. In this case, John may be able to raise the defence of intoxication, arguing that his level of intoxication was so significant that he did not have the necessary intent to cause grievous bodily harm. If successful, John may be convicted of a lesser offence, such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which does not require proof of specific intent.

The defence of intoxication is a complex and limited defence in NSW criminal law that can only be used in certain circumstances. It is important to understand that voluntary intoxication is not an acceptable defence in most cases, and the burden of proof remains with the prosecution to establish the requisite mental state for the offence charged. By understanding the legal basis, limitations, and elements of this defence, those facing criminal charges who were intoxicated at the time of the offence can better assess whether it may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Consent as a Defence in NSW Criminal Law

Consent is a complete defence that can be raised in various offences, particularly those involving physical contact or the taking of property. If consent is successfully argued, it can result in an acquittal, as the accused's actions are considered to be lawful and justified.

Relevance in different types of offences (sexual, assault, larceny)

Consent is relevant in several types of offences:

1. Sexual offences: Consent is a critical issue in sexual assault cases. If the accused can demonstrate that the complainant freely and voluntarily consented to the sexual activity, it can provide a complete defence.
2. Assault: In cases of assault, consent can be a defence if the accused can show that the alleged victim consented to the physical contact, such as in sporting activities or consensual fights.
3. Larceny: Consent may be a defence to larceny if the accused can prove that the owner of the property consented to the taking of the item.

Burden of proof

When consent is raised as a defence, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant or victim did not consent to the act in question. This means that once the accused has provided sufficient evidence to support the defence, the prosecution must establish that consent was not freely and voluntarily given.

Elements that must be proven

For consent to be established as a defence, the following elements must be satisfied:

1. The complainant or victim had the capacity to consent (i.e., they were of legal age and not significantly impaired by drugs, alcohol, or mental illness).
2. The consent was freely and voluntarily given (i.e., not obtained through force, threat, or coercion).
3. The consent was specific to the act in question and not obtained through deception or mistake.

When consent can be used as a defence

Consent can be used as a defence in various offences where the absence of consent is an element of the crime. However, there are some limitations:

1. In sexual offences involving children or young persons under the age of consent, consent is not a defence, as they are deemed incapable of providing legal consent.
2. In cases of serious bodily harm, consent may not be a defence, as the law does not permit individuals to consent to grievous bodily harm or death, except in specific circumstances (e.g., medical treatment or lawful sports).

Hypothetical scenarios demonstrating consent in different offences

1. Sexual offence: John and Sarah engage in sexual intercourse. Sarah later claims that she did not consent to the act. If John can provide evidence that Sarah freely and voluntarily consented to the sexual activity, such as text messages or witness testimony, he may be able to raise the defence of consent.
2. Assault: Mark and David agree to engage in a boxing match. During the fight, Mark sustains injuries. If David is charged with assault, he may be able to argue that Mark consented to the physical contact by agreeing to participate in the boxing match.
3. Larceny: Anna borrows her friend Emily's laptop without explicitly asking for permission. If Anna is charged with larceny, she may be able to raise the defence of consent by arguing that, based on their friendship and past behaviour, Emily had implicitly consented to Anna borrowing her possessions.

Consent is a complete defence that can be raised in various offences involving physical contact or the taking of property in NSW criminal law. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that consent was not freely and voluntarily given. By understanding the legal basis, elements, and limitations of this defence, those facing criminal charges can better assess whether consent may apply to their case and how to effectively argue it in court.

Substantial Impairment due to Abnormality of Mind in NSW Criminal Law

Definition and legal basis

The partial defence of substantial impairment due to abnormality of mind is contained in section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It provides that a person who would otherwise be guilty of murder may instead be found guilty of manslaughter if, at the time of the act or omission that caused the death, the person's capacity to understand events, judge whether their actions were right or wrong, or control themselves was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition.

Burden of proof

The onus is on the accused to establish 'on the balance of probabilities' that they had a substantial impairment due to abnormality of mind. This means the accused must prove it is more likely than not that the elements of the defence are satisfied.

Elements that must be proven

For the defence to apply, the following must be established by the accused on the balance of probabilities:

1. The accused was suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time of the act or omission that caused the death. The abnormality can arise from an underlying condition such as intellectual disability, brain damage, mental health disorder, or severe personality disorder.
2. The abnormality of mind substantially impaired the accused's capacity to understand events, judge the rightness or wrongness of their actions, or control themselves.
3. The substantial impairment was so severe that liability for murder ought to be reduced to manslaughter.

The effects of self-induced intoxication cannot be taken into account in determining whether the accused was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind.

When substantial impairment can be used

The partial defence of substantial impairment only applies to reduce what would otherwise be a conviction for murder to manslaughter. It is not a complete defence. All the other elements of murder must still be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt for substantial impairment to be considered.

Consequences of a successful substantial impairment defence

If the partial defence is successfully raised, the accused will be found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. This allows the court more flexibility in sentencing compared to a murder conviction. However, it is still a serious offence and can result in a lengthy prison sentence depending on the circumstances of the case.

Hypothetical scenario demonstrating substantial impairment

John suffers from paranoid schizophrenia which was untreated at the time of the offence. Due to his delusional beliefs, John thought his neighbour Tom was part of a conspiracy to kill him. One day, in response to this paranoid delusion, John fatally stabbed Tom.

John's defence argues he is not guilty of murder but of manslaughter, as his schizophrenia substantially impaired his capacity to understand events and judge the rightness and wrongness of his actions at the time. Psychiatric evidence is presented to show John lacked capacity due to his untreated condition. If the court accepts on the balance of probabilities that John's capacity was substantially impaired to an extent that liability for murder should be reduced, the defence will succeed and John will be convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.

Conclusion: Defences to Criminal Charges in NSW

Navigating the complex landscape of criminal law in NSW can be a daunting task, especially when facing charges that carry severe penalties. However, it is crucial to remember that being charged with a criminal offence does not necessarily mean a conviction is inevitable. The law in NSW recognises a range of defences that, when raised successfully, can lead to an acquittal or a reduction in charges.

This article has explored some of the key defences available under NSW criminal law, including self-defence, duress, necessity, the defence of automatism, mental illness, substantial impairment due to abnormality of mind, and extreme provocation. Each of these defences has its own unique elements and requirements, and the success of a defence will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

It is important to note that raising a defence in NSW criminal law is not a decision to be taken lightly. The burden of proof for many defences lies with the accused, and raising an unsuccessful defence may have implications for sentencing. Moreover, the law surrounding defences in NSW is complex and constantly evolving, making it essential to seek expert legal advice when considering your options.

Engaging an experienced criminal defence lawyer in NSW is one of the most important steps you can take if you are facing criminal charges. A skilled lawyer can assess the merits of your case, advise you on the best course of action, and mount a strong defence on your behalf. They can also guide you through the legal process, ensure your rights are protected, and work to achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Remember, being charged with a criminal offence in NSW is not the end of the road. By understanding the defences available to you and seeking the right legal support, you can give yourself the best chance of a successful outcome and protect your future. If you find yourself facing criminal charges in NSW, don't hesitate to reach out to a qualified criminal defence lawyer who can help you navigate this challenging time and ensure your voice is heard in court.

Frequently Asked Questions