Affray Lawyers in Adelaide

Self-defence is a common legal defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of self-defence are outlined in Section 15 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The key elements of self-defence are:

1. The accused genuinely believed that their conduct was necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose.
2. The conduct was, in the circumstances as the accused genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the accused genuinely believed to exist.

In the context of affray, self-defence could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they genuinely believed it was necessary to protect themselves or another person from an immediate threat of harm, and their response was proportionate to the threat they perceived.

For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for using violence in a public place. If that person was initially attacked or threatened by another individual and they responded with force to protect themselves, they could potentially raise self-defence as a defence to the charge of affray.

The key would be whether their response was proportionate to the threat they faced. If they used excessive force that was not proportionate to the threat (for example, if they severely injured the other person when a less violent response would have sufficed to protect themselves), then their claim of self-defence may not be successful.

Duress is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of duress are outlined in the case law and legislation of South Australia. The key elements of duress are:

1. The accused was threatened with serious bodily harm or death.
2. The accused reasonably believed that carrying out the offence was the only way to avoid the threatened harm.
3. The threat must be of such gravity that it might well have caused a reasonable person, sharing the same characteristics and in the same circumstances as the accused, to act in the same way.

In the context of affray, duress could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they were forced to do so under threat of harm. The threat must be immediate and sufficiently serious to cause a reasonable person to succumb to it.

For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was threatened by another individual with serious harm or death unless they participated in the violence, they could potentially raise duress as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether their response was proportionate to the threat they faced and whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted similarly.

Necessity is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of necessity are outlined in the case law and legislation of South Australia. The key elements of necessity are:

1. The accused must show an imminent danger to person or property.
2. The accused must have an honest belief on reasonable grounds of the necessity to act for the preservation of person and/or property.
3. The acts done to avoid the imminent danger must not be out of proportion to the danger to be avoided.

In the context of affray, necessity could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they believed it was necessary to avoid an imminent danger. The response must be proportionate to the threat they perceived.

For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was in a situation where they believed on reasonable grounds that they were in imminent danger (for example, they were surrounded by a violent mob), and they used or threatened violence as a means to escape from that danger, they could potentially raise necessity as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether their response was proportionate to the threat they faced.

Lack of intent is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray.

The key element of this defence is that the accused did not intend to use or threaten violence, or did not intend to cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety. The prosecution must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt .

In the context of affray, lack of intent could be raised if the accused was involved in a situation where violence occurred, but they did not themselves use or threaten violence, or did not intend to cause fear.

For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for being involved in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was present during the incident but did not themselves use or threaten violence, and did not intend to cause fear, they could potentially raise lack of intent as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether they intended to use or threaten violence, or to cause fear.

Another example could be a situation where a person gets involved in a heated argument in a public place. If the argument remains verbal, with no physical violence or threat thereof from the person, and they did not intend to cause fear, they could argue lack of intent if charged with affray.

Mental impairment is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of mental impairment are outlined in the case law and legislation of South Australia. The key elements of mental impairment are:

1. The accused was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the offence.
2. The mental impairment affected their ability to understand what they were doing, or to know that what they were doing was wrong, or they were unable to control their conduct.

In the context of affray, mental impairment could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they were suffering from a mental impairment that affected their understanding or control of their actions.

For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the incident, such as a psychotic disorder, and this impairment affected their understanding of their actions or their ability to control their actions, they could potentially raise mental impairment as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether their mental impairment affected their understanding or control of their actions.

Another example could be a situation where a person with a diagnosed mental illness, such as schizophrenia, gets involved in a violent incident in a public place. If their mental illness was active at the time of the incident and affected their understanding of their actions or their ability to control their actions, they could potentially raise mental impairment as a defence.

The key elements of automatism are:

1. The accused acted without conscious control or awareness.
2. The state of automatism was not self-induced, for example, by voluntary intoxication.

In the context of affray, automatism could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence while in a state of automatism, meaning they were not consciously controlling their actions at the time.

For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was in a state of automatism at the time of the incident, such as sleepwalking or due to a medical condition like epilepsy, and they used or threatened violence while in that state, they could potentially raise automatism as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether they were acting without conscious control or awareness, and whether the state of automatism was not self-induced .

Another example could be a situation where a person with a diagnosed mental illness, such as schizophrenia, gets involved in a violent incident in a public place. If their mental illness caused a dissociative state at the time of the incident and they acted without conscious control or awareness, they could potentially raise automatism as a defence.