Self-defence Flashcards
What type of defence is self-defence?
A complete defence
Leads to an acquittal if successfully pleaded
What are the 2 separate parts of this defence?
- Public defence/ prevention of crime (s3 CLA 1967)
2. Self-defence at Common Law
What act clarifies the 2 types defences within self-defence?
s76 Criminal Justice and immigration Act 2008
Passed to clarify 2 defences following public concern after the Tony Martin case
Didn’t change the law in any way
What does the s3 Criminal Law Act 1967 state about public defence?
Under s3 a person may use reasonable force to prevent crime or (help) arrest arrest (suspected) offenders or persons at large
What case failed to use public defence?
Describe this case
R v Jones (2004)
D were protesting about war in Iraq
Caused damage to military bases
Argued they had a defence under s3 - they were trying to prevent an international crime of aggression against Iraq
HL rejected their appeal on grounds that ‘aggression’ is not a crime
Who is a D allowed to defend in self-defence?
Themselves, others, even complete strangers
However = rules + limitation on the defence
When a D pleads self-defence what 2 things must the prosecution prove?
- Use of ANY for was unnecessary
OR if some force was justifiable
- Actual degree of force used was unreasonable
What are the 3 key issues the Cts look at within necessity of force in self-defence?
- Possibility of retreat
- Imminent threat
- Whether D made a mistake which caused them to think their action was justified
Name the case that clarified the law on the possibility of retreat within the defence?
What used to be thought about the possibility of retreat?
R v Bird (1985)
Used to be thought that D would have to demonstrate they were not wishing to fight + if there = chance to escape, this would deprive them of the defence
Describe the case of R v Bird (1985)
D = celebrating 17th birthday
Ex-boyfriend turned up with his new girlfriend
Heated argument followed
Resulted in D gouging out his eye with glass
Trial judge told jury: D should’ve demonstrated she didn’t want to fight
CA quashed her conviction for wounding; not necessary for her to show reluctance to fight, self-defence = available
What does the principle of ‘imminent threat’ mean?
D = only be justified in reacting to a threat which = imminent
MUST be some immediacy about the threat
BUT they don’t have to wait to be attacked
In limited circumstances law will allow a pre-emptive attack
As shown in R v Beckford (1988)
Strictly limited (Cousins 1982, Rashford 2005)
Describe the case of R v Beckford (1988)
D = police officer who shot dead suspect
Told = armed + dangerous, D feared for his life
Prosecutions case: V was unarmed thus presented no threat to D
Lord Griffiths: ‘man who is about to be attacked doesn’t have to wait for his assailant to strike 1st blow/ fire 1st shot. Circumstances may justify pre-emptive strike’
What did Lord Griffiths say in the case of R v Beckford (1988)?
‘A man who is about to be attacked doesn’t have to wait for his assailant to strike the 1st blow/ fire the 1st shot
Circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike’
Describe the case of Cousins (1982)?
D believed contract had been taken out on his life
Armed with shot gun, visited father of person he believed wanted him killed
Told father: would kill his son when he saw him
Charged with making threats, relied on s3 defence
Judge told jury: defence = not available; D’s life wasn’t in imminent danger
CA quashed the conviction + held = lawful excuse to threaten to kill IF threat = made in prevention of crime/ self-defence
Provided its = reasonable in circumstances to make such a threat
Describe the case of R v Rashford (2005)
D stabbed V in chest following argument over trivial matter
D claimed it = an accident
D (+ 2 others) visited D to ‘teach him a lesson’
D’s conviction = upheld; not actually been placed in a position where = necessary to use force when he stabbed the V through the heart
CA ruled in principle = at least possible to plead self-defence to a charge of murder
Even though D admitted he had gone out looking for revenge
Why is it important that the law be strictly limited when it comes to allowing a pre-emptive attack?
Because of the danger of vigilantes