Defences

Defences

General defences in criminal proceedings

General defences are available in relation to a range of criminal offences rather than those which are available only in relation to a particular crime. Some offences have particular defences attached to them, for example, the adequate procedures defence to an offence under section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 (failure to prevent bribery) and those defences which exist only in relation to murder. These defences are specifically dealt with in the relevant Practice Note relating to the offence. This subtopic deals solely with the general defences.

General defences are those which arise from specific characteristics of the defendant or the circumstances of the offence which mean that the prosecution cannot prove all the elements of the offence. They may result in an acquittal or they may reduce the defendant’s culpability to render them guilty of a lesser offence.

When investigating a suspected crime, there is a duty to consider evidence supporting any defence and general defences should be considered in every case.

The main general defences are:

•
automatism
•
intoxication
•
mistake
•
insanity
•
duress and necessity, and
•
self-defence,

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Corporate Crime News

Compliance lessons from art dealers terror financing plea

Law360, London: The worlds of art and terrorism may seem very far removed from each other; the traditional images of each are dramatically different. However, the 9 May 2025 guilty plea and conviction in Westminster Magistrates' Court of Oghenochuko Ojiri, an art dealer also known for his role in the television programme Bargain Hunt, has brought the risks into sharp relief.

Joint prosecution for counterfeit cranberry sauce supply offences

West Yorkshire Trading Standards and Kirklees Council have jointly prosecuted Irfan Hanif Patel and Mohammed Patel for supplying counterfeit cranberry sauce. Irfan Patel, operating as a sole trader and Mohammed Patel, as director of Stock Up Direct Limited, have both pleaded guilty to offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and breaches of food hygiene regulations by trading without registering their food businesses. At Leeds Crown Court, Irfan Patel has been sentenced to a 12‐month community order including 120 hours of unpaid work and issued a confiscation order of £18,903, reflecting a declared benefit of £681,510.47 from criminal conduct. Mohammed Patel has been sentenced to a 12‐month community order with 100 hours of unpaid work and issued a confiscation order of £1,607, matching his declared benefit. The proceedings were conducted under the framework of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

From Russia with love? UK lawyers mull sanctions U-turn

Law360, London: Finance companies are enlisting white-collar lawyers to draw up plans for tapping back into Russia if the US breaks with its Western allies and eases sanctions, although experts warn that unpredictable political winds mean there are as many risks as opportunities.

OEP finds potential breaches of environmental law on wild bird protection by Defra and Natural England

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) has found potential breaches of environmental law by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Secretary of State and Natural England concerning the protection of wild birds. As a result, the OEP has issued information notices to both bodies, detailing its findings. They have until 5 August 2025 to respond, after which the OEP will review the responses before determining next steps. This follows an investigation launched by the OEP in March 2024. A parallel investigation is ongoing in Northern Ireland, with an information notice also issued to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

View Corporate Crime by content type :

News