Self Defence Flashcards
Beckford v R [1988]
Recognises that burden to raise circumstances of self-defence on the defendant, then burden is on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that self-defence did not apply.
Criminal Law Act 1967 S.3
s.b. page 35
Statutory footing for self-defence - COMPLIMENTS common law.
S.3 ‘Use of force in making arrest, etc.’
(1) a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders…
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 S.76
s.b. page 372
Codifies law of self-defence
S.76
Elements of self-defence
(1) The force used must be NECESSARY
(2) The use of force must be REASONABLE (proportionate to the harm being faced.) –> jury question.
R. v Williams (Gladstone)
Authority that whether the force is necessary is a subjective test as to the defendant’s perception of the situation.
D is judge by the facts as he believed them.
Added objective element: if D makes a mistake in his assessment that force is necessary, will pass the subjective test if that mistake was reasonable and honest to make.
Beckford v R
Authority that THE TEST OF WHETHER FORCE USED IS REASONABLE IS AN OBJECTIVE ONE.
R. v Owino [1995]
Assault case - unimportant facts but important case.
C of A confirmed that requirement of REASONABLENESS IS STILL A CENTRAL PART OF SELF-DEFENCE.
(1980s - law had been moving in a direction that was too defendant-friendly - hinged too much on D’s subjective outlook - Owino put law of self-defence back on the right path.)
Beckford v R
Authority that the criminal law permits pre-emptive strikes to be made.
Devlin v Armstrong [1971]
Charges of inciting against Irish rioters (Londonderry) - threatened to use petrol bombs on police if they came near.
Held; that whilst the circumstances can lawfully justify making a pre-emptive strike, THERE MUST BE IMMINENCE BETWEEN THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE AND THE STRIKE.
R. v Julien
No duty to retreat - but law expects you to demonstrate restraint and that you take steps to disengage/withdraw where possible.
R. v Bird
Affirms R. v Julien - C of A - balancing act - don’t have to retreat but need to be able to show that you aren’t the one instigating the violence.
R. v Clegg
H of L:
- Can’t use EXCESSIVE FORCE
(case was N.I. - dangerous car - officer fired 4 shots - last one killed passenger, even though evidenced showed that car was driving away and threat was no longer IMMINENT.
-Self-defence - NO HALFWAY HOUSE - EITHER FULL ACQUITTAL OR NOTHING - manslaughter conviction not possible
Lord Lloyd: self-defence is ‘all or nothing’.
R. v Martin (Tony)
FAMOUS CONTROVERSIAL CASE
Had been burgled many times in secluded farmhouse - argued paranoia etc. - kept shotgun in house
One night - heard intruders - burglars - ran downstairs and they ran away - he chased them and shot them.
Debate about boundaries of householders’ rights to protect their own homes…
H of L - CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER BY WAY OF DR - tried to distinguish from Clegg by making it about DR and not SD.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 S.148
(not in sb)
Put on statutory footing that there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT FROM TRESPASSERS TO YOUR PROPERTY.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 S.43
Made householder-friendly amendments to S.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
For householders - use of force must be ‘GROSSLY disproportionate’ to be unreasonable.
Householders given more protection now by criminal law - their response to a threat of violence must be more unreasonable than others.
No case law where ‘grossly’ disproportionate is at issue.
Bleasdale-Hill - supports the amendment.
