Question

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Nothing is an offence which is done in madness. Facts: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B to save his life, kills A.

• A. A has committed the offence of attempt to murder
• B. A has committed an offence of being mad
• C. B has committed an offence
• D. B has not committed an offence

Hint:

In cases of madness, the individual is not liable for actions committed in that state, and the person they harm is not liable either.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The principle says that no offence occurs when the act is done under the right of private defence or under the state of madness. In this case, A, under the influence of madness, attempted to kill B, which was not a conscious act of malice. Hence, B, in this scenario, has not committed any offence as the act done by A was in a state of madness. Thus, the correct answer is (D). Option (A) is incorrect because A was not in a state of mind to form intent to commit murder. Option (B) is incorrect because the principle only applies to the person acting in madness, and A’s madness is not the issue for B. Option (C) is incorrect because B did not commit any offence.

Answer 2

This question layers two separate immunities, private defence and madness, onto two different people, so it's important to work out which principle covers which party's conduct. Let's assess each option.

1. A has committed the offence of attempt to murder: A acted under the influence of madness when attempting to kill B. The principle states that nothing is an offence when done in a state of madness, and that immunity covers A's attempt on B, so A cannot be held to have committed attempted murder.
2. A has committed an offence of being mad: Being mad is a state, not a criminal act, and the principle does not create any offence out of simply being in that state; it only removes liability for acts done while in it. There is no such thing as an "offence of being mad."
3. B has committed an offence: B killed A while defending his own life against A's attack. Acting to save his life against an ongoing attempt on it falls within the exercise of the right of private defence, which the principle expressly exempts from being an offence. B therefore committed no offence.
4. B has not committed an offence: B's killing of A occurred while saving his own life from A's attack, which is a textbook exercise of the right of private defence. The principle states plainly that nothing done in the exercise of that right is an offence, so B's act is fully covered and B has not committed any offence.

Since B acted purely to save his own life from A's attack, his conduct falls squarely within the right of private defence that the principle protects.

Therefore, the correct answer is B has not committed an offence.

Answer 3

Two separate immunities sit side by side in the principle, one for acts done in private defence, and one for acts done in madness, and each applies to a different person's conduct here. Sorting out which immunity attaches to which actor resolves the options.

1. A has committed the offence of attempt to murder: A's conduct is governed by the madness immunity, not the private-defence one. Since A acted under the influence of madness when attempting to kill B, that immunity covers A's attempt directly, so no offence attaches to A here.
2. A has committed an offence of being mad: Neither immunity in the principle criminalises a mental state on its own; both are phrased as excusing acts done in madness or in private defence, not as creating a new offence out of simply being unwell. There is no such offence to assign to A.
3. B has committed an offence: B's conduct falls to be judged under the private-defence immunity, since B killed A while defending his own life against A's attack. That immunity squarely covers B's act, leaving no offence on his side.
4. B has not committed an offence: Checking B's conduct against the private-defence immunity confirms it applies in full, B acted to save his own life from an ongoing attack by A, which is exactly the situation that immunity is built for. Nothing about B's conduct falls outside it.

Sorting the two immunities to their respective actors, madness covering A's attempt and private defence covering B's killing, leaves B without any offence.

Therefore, the correct answer is B has not committed an offence.