F3.40 Self-defence

Question 1

In Lobell [1957] 1 QB 547, where D was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and there was some evidence to support his defence of self-defence, why was it a misdirection for the trial judge to direct the jury that it was for the defence to establish that plea to their satisfaction?

Answer 1

Although the prosecution are not obliged to give evidence in chief to rebut a suggestion of self-defence before the issue is raised, once there is sufficient evidence to leave the issue before the jury, it is for the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. See also Wheeler [1967] 3 All ER 829 at p. 830 and Abraham [1973] 3 All ER 694 at p. 1273.

Question 2

What was held should have happened to the defences in Dickens [2005] EWCA Crim 2017, where in the particular circumstances of the case, it was extremely difficult to disentangle the defences of self-defence and accident?

Answer 2

It was unwise to approach the facts as if they fell within mutually exclusive compartments and both defences should have been left to the jury.

Question 3

What should happen when:

(i) there might be sufficient evidence to leave an issue before the jury?

(ii) when there was sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case?

Bonnick (1978) 66 Cr App R 266

Answer 3

that the question whether there was sufficient evidence to leave an issue before the jury was a question for the trial judge to answer by applying common sense to the evidence;

but when there was sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case, the issue should be left to the jury.