Tahir Sulaiman Usman BU/22A/law/6230
Criminal law Assignment
Defenses serve a fundamental purpose: they provide a legal basis for defendants to challenge
or mitigate their liability for alleged crimes. Criminal defenses are categorized into three main
types: justification defenses, excuse defenses, and procedural defenses. Each type varies in
terms of legal reasoning and effect on the defendant’s liability.
1. Purpose of Criminal Defenses
Criminal defenses allow defendants to present legally recognized reasons or circumstances that
can negate or mitigate the criminal liability attributed to their actions. This not only promotes
fairness in the justice system but also ensures that individuals are only held accountable when
their actions warrant punishment under the law. Defenses can completely absolve the
defendant (exculpatory) or reduce the degree of liability (mitigatory).
2. Types of Criminal Defenses
a. Justification Defenses
Justification defenses assert that the defendant’s actions were legally acceptable under the
circumstances, even if they would typically constitute a crime. Examples include self-defense,
defense of others, and necessity. In these situations, the law recognizes that the actions, though
normally prohibited, were reasonable given the specific context.
Case Law: In R v. Gladstone Williams (1984), the court upheld that an individual could be
acquitted based on their honest belief that self-defense was necessary, even if that belief was
mistaken.
b. Excuse Defenses
Excuse defenses acknowledge that the defendant committed a wrongful act but argue that they
should not be held fully accountable due to personal circumstances or incapacity. Examples
include insanity, duress, and intoxication.
Case Law: In M'Naghten's Case (1843), the court established that a defendant could be
excused from liability if a mental disorder rendered them unable to understand the nature of
their actions or distinguish between right and wrong.
c. Procedural Defenses
Procedural defenses focus on protecting the defendant's rights throughout the criminal justice
process, arguing that the case should be dismissed due to legal or procedural errors, such as
unlawful arrest or violations of due process.
Case Law: R v. Loosely (2001) established that entrapment, where authorities induce someone
to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed, could lead to acquittal on
procedural grounds.
3. Effect of Criminal Defenses: Exculpatory and Mitigatory
Criminal defenses can either be exculpatory, where the defendant is completely absolved from
criminal liability, or mitigatory, where the defense reduces the severity of the offense or
punishment. For example, a successful insanity plea may lead to a non-guilty verdict by reason
of insanity, an exculpatory outcome. In contrast, duress may serve as a mitigating factor,
reducing the offense’s seriousness without fully absolving the defendant.
4. Burden of Proving Criminal Defenses
The burden of proving a defense depends on the type of defense asserted. Typically, the
prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense.
However, when a defense is raised, the defendant may need to establish their claim on the
"balance of probabilities" in civil cases or, in some criminal defenses, provide evidence of the
defense. Courts have determined that certain defenses, like insanity, require the defendant to
prove the defense, while others, such as self-defense, only require the defendant to raise
reasonable doubt about their culpability.
Case Law: In Woolmington v. DPP (1935), it was emphasized that the burden of proving guilt
rests with the prosecution and that the defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt for
acquittal in self-defense.