Self- Defence

Question 1

What type of burden is D required to prove?

Answer 1

Evidential Burden of Proof, requiring them to produce some evidence to support their claim. Once this is done the burden shifts back to the prosecution who must disprove the defence

Question 2

How does the common law defence and the S.3 CLA 1967 defence overlap?

Answer 2

common law= a person using reasonable force to protect themselves, another or property
S.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (known as the Public defence)= allows people to use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime or assist in the lawful arrest of a person who is suspected of committing a crime
However, the S.3 CLA 1967 defence can only be used against someone over the age of 10, as if they are younger they are “doli incapax” and cannot be sued when the threat is coming from property

Question 3

Self defence is usually raised to homicide or non fatal offences, though it is not confined to them, give an example

Answer 3

e.g Hanrahan
D got into a fight which led to V suffering a broken nose and property damage. D was acquitted of both the assault and criminal damage

Question 4

What is the procedure to self-defence?

Answer 4

Operates in line with Woolmington as D bears the evidential burden requiring some proof in support of their plea.
There must be sufficient evidence upon which the jury think it was reasonably possible that D was acting in self-defence
It is then for the prosecution to disprove the defence, either by showing the force was no necessary or that the force was necessary but not reasonable

Question 5

The principles of self-defence often protect an individual from ever reaching the court room as the CPS initially assess whether self-defence applies, If they believe it does, it is unlikely the charges will ever be brought. Give an example.

Answer 5

Cecil Coley
(used a weapon to defend himself from a burglar)

Question 6

What act clarified the position of “reasonable force”?

Answer 6

S.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Question 7

What was stated in Hughes?

Answer 7

Confirmed that S.76 “ (a) does not alter the law as it has been for many years; (b) it does not exhaustively state the law of self-defence, but it does state the basic principles”

Question 8

To decide the neccesity of force what are the four factors?

Answer 8

1)Retreat (Did the circumstances offer D a retreat opportunity?)
2)Imminence (Was the threat immediate or imminent?)
3) Mistake (Did the D misinterpret the circumstances?)
5) Self-induced ( Did the D instigate the need to use for force?)

Question 9

What factor of neccesity of force is necessary in every case?

Answer 9

2 is essential (Imminence of threat. Was the threat immediate or immient?)

#1 #3 #4 = case depedent

Question 10

Previously, what was the laws view on retreat?

Answer 10

The law required the D to retreat as far as possible before resorting to violence. This is no longer the case.

Question 11

What was confirmed by the court of appeal in Mclnnes?

Answer 11

“Ds behaviour should certaintly have demonstrated that he did not want to fight, but simply failing to take an opportunuty to run away did in itself make the defence unavailable”

Question 12

What happened in the case of Bird?

Answer 12

D was at her 17th Birthday party and her ex-boyfriend arrived with his new girlfriend. D and V began arguing, she asked him to leave, he did but later returned and they began to argue again. D poured a drink over V, he slapped her and pinned her against the wall. D retailated by punching him in the face but forgt she still had a glass in her hand which broke on imapct and cuased serious injury. The trial judge directed that D could only rely on self-defence if she had shown an unwillingness to fight. Court of appeal quashed conviction , confirming that there was no absolute requirmement to retreat.

Question 13

What section of the CJIA 2008 confirms that a person is not under a duty to retreat whne acting for a legitimate purpose?

Answer 13

S.76 (6A)

Question 14

What does it mean by the threat being either imminent or immediate?

Answer 14

Imminent= about to happen
Immediate- happening

Question 15

What is the phrase given to when D can act to prevent force if they reasoanbly apprhend an atttack?

Answer 15

Pre-emptive strike

Question 16

What did Lord Griffiths state in Beckford?

Answer 16

“A man about to be attacked does not have to waut for his assaliant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike”

Question 17

True or false can it be lawful for D to use threats of force if that might prevent the attack?

Answer 17

true

Question 18

True or false can where D apprehends an attack they are able to prepare to defend themselves even if it envovles breaking the law

Answer 18

true

Question 19

What happened in AGs reference (No 2 of 1983)?

Answer 19

Ds shop had been atacked and damaged by extensive riots. Fearing further attacks D made petrol bombs that he intended to use should he face further attacks. There was no further attacks, and D was charged with possession of an explosive substance in such circumstancves to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he did not have it fora lawful object.He pleaded self-defence and the jury acquited him, which was upheld during the review. Lord Lane “A person may still arm himself for his own protection, although in doing so he may committ other offences”

Question 20

What happened in Malnik?

Answer 20

D visted V who beleived to have stolen some cars beloning to Ds friend. V was known to be violent so D took a wepaon with him, The court of appeal rejected the arguement that carrying the weapon was justified becuase he was in imminent danger of attack, poitning at that eh created the dangerous situation by going to the V’s house.

Question 21

What happened in Hussain and others.

Answer 21

V and 2 others armed themselves and burgled Ds home. D and his family were threated with death, however D and one of his sons escaped and they along with D’s brother (who lived on the same street) chased the burglars. They coaught up with one an attacked him using various weapons, V suffered serious injury. D1 and D2 were convicted of S.18 GBH with intent OAPA 1861. This case demonstrates when D’s cross the line becuase continued force was being used after the danger had passed.

Question 22

Why is the D judged on the facts they genuinely beleived them to be?

Answer 22

(Judged from the subjective perspective)
If D makes a mistake which leads to them beleiving there circumstances making defensive action mecessary, the courts will assess the necessity of D’s conduct pn the versions of events D thought was happeneing.

-The Privy Council approved of this reasoning in Beckford. It follows that the D can use force to repel perfectily lawful behaviour provided D genuinely thinks force is necessary

Question 23

What happened in Williams?

Answer 23

D was on the bus when he saw what he thoughr was a man assaulting a black youth. The youth was struggling and shouting for help. In fact it was a man trying to arrest the youth from robbing an old women. D got off the bus and asked what was happening, v said he was arresting the youth for rmugging and that he was a police officer (which was false). D asked to see the warrantcard, when he was not forthcoming a struggle ensured between the men. D was convicted of S.47 ABH which was quashed by the CA. The facts should be treated as D honestly thought them to be.

Question 24

What does S.76(4) CJIA 2008 state?

Answer 24

Confirms the common law position that D is entitled to be judged on the facts they geniuenly believed them to be, even if a mistake.

Question 25

What is the laws view on intoxication and self defence?

Answer 25

D cannot plead self defecne if the reason for the mistake is voluntary intoxication.

Question 26

What happened in O’Grady?

Answer 26

D and V both had been heavily drinking and fell asleep in D’s flat. D claimed he awoke to V hititng him, and then D picked up an ashtray and hit V and went back to sleep. D awoke to find V died with multiply wounds all over the body.

Question 27

What was Lord Lnae’s view on voluntary intoxication, mistake and self defence?

Answer 27

-Self defence is a complete defence, and therefore to apply the self-defence principles to intoxciated D’s it could mean that dangerous Ds go unpunished.

Question 28

What was confirmed in Hatton?

Answer 28

D had drunk over 20 pints of beer. He and V went back to D’s flat. D claimed to have found V dead from injurues caused by a sledghammer. D said he could not rember what had happened but thiughr V had hit him with a 5ft long stick and he had defeanded the attack (whoch was found under the body), however CA upheld murder conviciton.
Drunken Mistake= no self-defence

Question 29

What is stated in S.76 (5) CJIA 2008?

Answer 29

Self denfence awarded to someone who was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the “mistake”