Paper 1.15 - Self Defence Flashcards
Is self defence a full or a partial defence?
Full defence, results in an acquittal.
Who has the burden (and to what extent) in a self-defence plea?
Prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Where does the law of self defence come from? (4)
Common law
s3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967
s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
s43 Crime and Courts Act 2013
What does the term ‘self’ include in self defence?
The D and others close to them.
Who is the defence of self defence intended for?
People who cause injury to another in an attempt to prevent them from committing a crime.
How much force can be used in self defence? How does this change for householders?
Force must be proportionate (CLA 1967) and necessary (CJIA 2008) within the circumstances. Householders can use up to grossly disproportionate force (C&CA 2008).
In self defence, the force used by d must be proportionate. What is the case study of this?
Hussain
D’s house was broken into by armed men who threatened his family. D called his brother who chased the men out of the house. One of the men was caught and attacked with a cricket bat; there was no defence as the force was not proportionate.
Also Martin / Clegg.
In self defence, the force used by d must be necessary. What is the case study for this?
Clegg
D, solider at a checkpoint, had a car driving at speed toward his checkpoint. It refused to slow down when instructed. D opened fire killing V. It was deemed his actions were excessive and he wasn’t awarded SD.
Also Martin / Hussain.
TRUE OR FALSE: D will still be eligible for a self defence plea if they make preparations for an attack, eg keeping a weapon at their bedside.
True, this was the case in AG Ref 2 of 1983.
D made petrol bombs in response to riots in the area. When faced with the riots, he used them. D pleaded self defence and was acquitted. CA confirmed this decision on reference.
TRUE OR FALSE: D will still be eligible for a self defence plea if they pre-empt an attack, striking before V can initiate violence.
True, this was the case in Bird.
D, celebrating her birthday, found out that her ex and his new girlfriend attended her party. This led to an argument and then a fight, causing V to lose his eye. D was acquitted of GBH.
For self-defence to be viable for a householder, three conditions must be met. What are these?
Force used by D must be from a dwelling.
D must not be a trespasser.
D muse believe V is trespassing.
Householders are allowed to use up to grossly disproportionate force when defending their home. What is the case example of this?
Collins
D forced V into a headlock after V broke into the house at night. V sustained permanent brain damage from the incident. D was acquitted as a headlock was not seen as grossly disproportionate.
In the event that D makes an honest mistake about the necessity of self defence, are they still eligible for the defence?
Yes, this was the case in Gladstone Williams.
D spotted a man and a boy scuffling on the street. The man, a plain cloth police officer, was attempting to arrest the boy. D broke up the fight and asked PO for his badge, which he was unable to supply. D and PO then fought. D was convicted of ABH; however the judge directed the jury to acquit the man if they felt he had made a reasonable mistake.
In the event that D makes a drunken mistake about the necessity of self defence, are they still eligible for the defence?
No, this was the case in Lipman.
D, intoxicated, strangled his girlfriend, believing that she was a snake attacking him. D had no defence as his intoxication was voluntary.
In self defence, the D’s characteristics are not considered when deciding if the self defence was necessary. What is the case study of this?
Martin
D shot two burglars in the back as they fled D’s house. D was a sufferer of paranoid personality disorder; however the courts decided that this was not relevant to the case and found him guilty regardless.
