A true defence is an explanation provided by an accused individual to justify why they should not be held accountable for something. It can take the form of an answer, denial, or plea. An affirmative defence occurs when the accused presents evidence and arguments that, if proven true, would undermine the plaintiff’s or prosecutor’s accusation. Additionally, there are various other types of defences, including the insanity defence, perfect defence, and real defence. The defence can be utilised by a defendant and their attorney in court to counter the plaintiff or prosecutor’s case.
The term “true defence” is used in the legal context to describe a defendant’s strategy for opposing the plaintiff or prosecution in a trial. It can also refer to the defendant’s stated justification for why the plaintiff or prosecutor’s case is invalid. For instance, a defendant may argue that they were not present at the crime scene when the incident occurred. Another type of defence is known as an affirmative defence, where the defendant presents facts and arguments that, if proven true, would undermine the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s claim, even if all the allegations in the complaint are accurate. For example, a defendant may claim self-defence in a criminal case. Additionally, there are various other types of defences, including the Castle doctrine defence, which allows for the justification of criminal conduct if the defendant’s place of residence or property is unjustifiably threatened by an aggressor; the insanity defence, which asserts that the defendant’s actions were not their responsibility due to a mental illness; and the perfect defence, which fulfils all legal requirements and leads to the defendant’s acquittal. These examples demonstrate how defendants can utilise different defence strategies to oppose the plaintiff or prosecution in a trial and avoid punishment by providing a legal excuse or justification.
A true defence is a legal argument or evidence presented by a defendant in a criminal case to prove their innocence or to establish a valid justification for their actions.
Common examples of true defences include self-defence, alibi, lack of intent, duress, entrapment, necessity, and insanity.
Self-defence is a true defence that allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm or danger. The defendant must prove that their actions were necessary and proportionate to the threat they faced.
Generally, a person cannot claim self-defence if they were the initial aggressor. However, some jurisdictions recognize a “retreat doctrine” that allows a person to claim self-defence even if they started the confrontation, as long as they made a good faith effort to retreat or disengage before using force.
Self-defence involves using reasonable force to protect oneself, while excessive force refers to using more force than is reasonably necessary. If a person uses excessive force, their claim of self-defence may be invalidated.
The defence of alibi involves proving that the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime when it occurred. This defence relies on providing credible evidence, such as witness testimony or surveillance footage, to establish the defendant’s whereabouts during the alleged criminal activity.
Yes, a defendant can claim lack of intent as a true defence if they can prove that they did not have the necessary mental state required to commit the crime. For example, if a person accidentally causes harm without intending to do so, they may argue lack of intent.
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers induce or persuade an individual to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. To successfully claim entrapment, the defendant must prove that they were not predisposed to commit the crime and that the idea and opportunity to commit it originated from law enforcement.
Yes, a person can claim necessity as a true defence if they can demonstrate that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm or danger. For example, if someone steals food to prevent starvation, they may argue necessity as a defence.
The defence of insanity asserts that the defendant, due to a mental illness or defect, lacked the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions or to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. If successful, this defence may result in a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 27th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/true-defence/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):True Defence. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 20 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/true-defence/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):True Defence. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/true-defence/ (accessed: May 20 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):True Defence. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 20 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/true-defence/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts