self defence

Question 1

Collins, R (On the app of) v Secretary of State for Justice 2016

Answer 1

Held: D can use disproportionate force in a burglary as long as it is still reasonable within the circumstances

Question 2

R v Parker 1971

Answer 2

2 part test for self defence/ defence of property

1. Did D honestly believe the force was necessary?
2. Did D use a reasonable amount of force in the circumstances as he believed them to be? (objective test that takes facts into account)

Question 3

R v Beckford 1988

Answer 3

Held: D’s can pre-emptively strike - they do not need to wait for an assailant to strike first

Question 4

AG’s Ref No 2 of 1983

Answer 4

Facts: D was making bomb because he was constantly burgled
Question: Must the threat of it be imminent?
Held: If what is being done has a lawful objective then it is okay, imminent does not need to mean immediate
Criticism of the law that this goes too far

Question 5

Bird 1985

Answer 5

Held: There is no requirement to retreat or show an unwillingness to fight
- remember fight or FLIGHT - Bird 1985

Question 6

R v Hatton 2006

Answer 6

Held: the defence of self-defence will not work on specific intent crimes when intoxicated - largely policy influenced so pub fights will still be liable
- also can’t use drunken self defence as a defence for basic intent crimes as drinking is evidence of recklessness - Majewski and drunk intent is still intent - Kingston

Question 7

R v Keane 2010

Answer 7

Keane for a fight
Held: Self defence is difficult to plead when D is the original aggressor
Self-defence may arise but only where the violence committed by the victim were so out of proportion to the initial provocation that in effect the roles reversed
Self defence is not angry retaliation or pure aggression

Question 8

R v Palmer 1971

Answer 8

Held: D cannot be expected to have weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action
In the heat of the moment it is not possible to make these calculation
PALMer - slap with the palm of the hand

Question 9

Clegg 1995

Answer 9

Nick Cleggs forehead goes too far - this guys self defence went too far
Facts: soldier at check point shot at V several times, but his last shot was after V had gone underground and the threat was gone
Held: No defence, fourth shot whilst underground was held to be excessive force - guilty of murder

Question 10

Oye 2013

Answer 10

Oyeee crazy - that’s unreasonable
Held: an Insane person cannot set the standards if reasonableness as to the degree of force to be used by reference to his own insanity