Q&As

What is a cut-throat defence in criminal proceedings?

read titleRead full title

Published by a ½Û×ÓÊÓƵ Corporate Crime expert
Published on: 28 April 2021
imgtext

When one Defendant in a criminal trial seeks to advance a Defence case to the effect that the perpetrator of a Criminal act was their co-accused (ie blaming their co-accused), this is called cutting their co-accused’s throat, or a ‘cut throat defence’.

It is most often relied on when there is clear evidence to place before the magistrates’ or jury that an offence has been committed and where there was an opportunity for two or more people to commit the offence. By advancing a defence that the other person was in fACT the culpable

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Defence definition
What does Defence mean?

The statement of case in which the defendant sets out the facts on which he relies in response to the particulars of claim.

Read more

Popular documents

Strict liability

Strict liabilityStrict liability applies to offences for which the prosecution is not required to prove mens rea for one or more elements of the offence. What the defendant knew, believed, or intended is unlikely to be relevant. Guilt can therefore be established by the commission of an act

Criminal act or omission

Criminal act or omissionGenerally, for a person to be found guilty of a criminal offence, it must be shown that they:•acted in a particular way which is prohibited, or•failed to act in a particular way (omission), or•brought about a state of affairs•and had the required mental element or mens rea at

Dishonesty in the criminal law

Dishonesty in the criminal lawDishonesty provides the mens rea for multiple offences under statute and the common law. It is, however, not fully defined by statute. The exception is the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968), which goes some way towards defining dishonesty but only insofar as certain offences

Specific and basic intent

Specific and basic intentIntention refers to the outcome sought by the defendant. Offences may be described as either ones of ‘basic intent’ or of ‘specific intent’. The Court of Appeal has described this distinction as ‘elusive’. The Court nevertheless provided the following definition of specific