self defence

Question 1

keane

Answer 1

D had been drinking in pubs. In the final pub he entered, he met a man who offered him a lift home which he accepted . on the way home the driver stopped to get petrol. D got into an argument with one of the passengers - the woman was smoking and D told her not to spoke as it was dangerous to do so. he became rude and aggressive and pushed her to the ground . the driver went to talk to D , but D thought the driver was about to attack him so he punched him . the driver fell and hit his head heavily on the concrete . D was convicted of GBH and appealed-was dismissed. where the defendant was the aggressor or deliberately provokes the victim into punching him , there is no guaranteed right to rely on self defence

Question 2

clegg

Answer 2

a soldier at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland fired 4 shots at a car which was driving at speed towards him. the fourth shot caused the death of they victim. he was found guilty of murder, as the forth shot was fired after the car had passed

Question 3

AG’s Ref No2 of 1983

Answer 3

a shopkeeper prepared some petrol bombs in anticipation of his shop being attacked again, after already suffering £1,000 worth of damage in the riots which where occurring in the neighbourhood
*the court held that the defence could be allowed for offences based on possession in preparation of attacks , provided the possession goes when the danger of attack isn’t imminent

Question 4

DPP V Stratford Magistrates Court

Answer 4

Ds chained themselves to military trucks and fences around the defence and security equipment international exhibition. they claimed they were preventing a crime , as in previous years , the exhibition lead to the illegal sale of firearms to war torn countries . guilty as there has to be a direct threat

Question 5

beckford

Answer 5

D was a police officer who shot dead a man who had been armed and dangerous, and D was therefore in fear if his life, but the man was unarmed. the pre emptive strike was reasonable in the circumstances

Question 6

bird

Answer 6

D was at her birthday party and her ex boyfriend arrived with his new girlfriend. an argument assured, D poured a drink over V , V slapped her and pinned her against the wall , and then D punched V in the face. the glass she was holding broke , causing V to lose his eye . D was acquitted -she did not have to retreat, and it was reasonable to stand her ground

Question 7

hussey

Answer 7

it was stated that it would be lawful for a man to kill other who intended to evict him from his home unlawfully

Question 8

williams

Answer 8

D was on a bus and saw what he thoughts was a man assaulting a youth. In fact the man was trying to arrest the youth for robbing an old lady. D got off the bus and inflicted injuries on the man. the mistake was a genuine one , and self defence was successfully argued.

Question 9

cousins

Answer 9

the case of cousins held that a threat to kill will be acceptable for self-defence

Question 10

rashford

Answer 10

D stabbed V in the chest killing him. D claimed he was defending himself from V , but he had gone to V to ‘teach him a lesson’ , so he took violence to the scene- self defence is not available

Question 11

scarlett

Answer 11

D, a pub owner, threw a drink customer out. D believed V was about to strike him and so he out his arms around his body, pinning his arms to the side. he took him outside and placed him against the wall of the lobby. V fell backwards down a flight of 5 steps , struck his head and died. D was convicted of manslaughter and appealed on the ground that he honestly believed the amount of force he had used to evict the drunken man from his premises was necessary

Question 12

owino

Answer 12

it was held that the test for ‘reasonable’ force will be an objective one

Question 13

martin

Answer 13

D shot 2 burglars in the back as they tried to escape and was found guilty of murder. his conviction was reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of dismissed responsibility, his defence of self defence failed as she degree of force was unreasonable as it was disproportionate to the threat - he shot them in the back as they tried to leave

Question 14

collins

Answer 14

at 3am V broke into Ds house where his wife , 3 children and 3 friends were sleeping. D got the intruder into a headlock and his wife called the police as D could be heard saying ‘or else I’ll break his fucking neck’ . when the police arrived V’s face was purple and he was not breathing, he suffered brain damage. he was not prosecuted/guilty

Question 15

hussain

Answer 15

on returning home, D and his family were taken captive by three masked man wielding knifes. D was also beaten by the men. however he broke free, armed himself with a cricket bat and drove away the intruders. he chased , caught one of the intruders and assaulted him with the bat , leaving him brain damaged. he was guilty as this was excessive force

Question 16

O’Grady

Answer 16

D was an alcoholic ,and after a day of drinking , said that he was woken up by V hitting him on the head. he attacked V who suffered catastrophic injuries , including 20 wounds to his face and a fractured spine. the defence was not available ,as D cannot use his intoxication to justify excessive force

Question 17

Intro

Answer 17

the full defence is self defence had been codified by S.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration act 2008 . Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 allows the public defence for a person who uses force reasonable in the circumstances to prevent crime or to lawfully arrest offenders or suspects or those unlawfully at large. The defence may also be available under common law where the defendant uses force to defend himself , defend another , or defend property . In the case of Hussey , it was stated that it would be lawful for a man to kill another who intended to evict him from his home unlawfully . The defence is used for non-fatal offences , but can be used for other crimes such a murder. here..

Question 18

(1) firstly

Answer 18

Firstly, the court will consider whether there was a necessary use of force. If the threat was imminent , then force may have been necessary, set out in Clegg, AGs Ref No2 of 1983 , and DPP V Stratford Magistrates Court . here..
(If relevant) A pre-emptive strike by D may be reasonable , as in beckford. The case of Cousins he,f that a threat to kill will be acceptable for self-defence
(If relevant) it is not always necessary to retreat , as in Bird
(If relevant) A genuine mistake as to the threat will be acceptable, as in Williams
(If relevant) it will not be held necessary to use force if the defendant is the aggressor, as in Keane and Rashford
-> to conclude , it was necessary to use force

Question 19

(2) secondly

Answer 19

Secondly, the court will consider whether the degree of force was reasonable , meaning proportionate when compared to the threat, set out in S76(6) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 . This will be both a subjective and objective test , and down to the jury to decide (Scarlett, Owino)
In burglary cases, the S43 Crime and Courts Act 2013 and S76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 states that the degree of force will be reasonable unless it it grossly disproportionate to the threat (Martin , Collins , Hussain , Palmer)
The defendant cannot use the defence if he uses excessive force due to intoxication , as in O’Grady. here..
-> To conclude , the force used was necessary/ not necessary

Question 20

conclusion

Answer 20

to conclude, the defence of self defence may apply , so D may be found not guilty