self defence Flashcards
what three types of self defence are there
self defence, defence of another, prevention of crime
what two points need to be considered for any type of self defence
is force necarcerry? was force reasonable?
what happens if the answer to both the questions is yes
D will be acquitted, meaning the charges will be dropped and d will not be punished
why must the force always be justified within the circumstances
to prevent people form taking the law into there own hands
what is the key act for self defence and what does it highlight
section 76 criminal justice and immigration act 2007. defines ‘reasonable force’. by crime and courts act 2013 changes the amount of force that can be used in ‘household cases’
what is defence of property regulated by
criminal damage act 1971. section 5 (2) (b) is a ‘belief that property was in an immediate need of being protected
what act is prevention of a crime covered by and what does it state
criminal law act 1967, s3(1)’a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstance in the prevention of a crime’
when can you not plead self defence and what case outlined this.
when there has been some area of prior fault.case of oraki D was driving a car that he did not have valid insurance for. A police officer grabbed his mother’s arm and d tried to pull him away. D was not allowed self defence
who decides whether force was necessary
the jury
what act outlined the approach to duty to retreat and what does it say
criminal justice and immigration act 2008 states that a person is not under the duty to retreat however it is a factor that will be considered when deciding whether force was necessary
what case outlines duty to retreat
hussain and other. ds house was broken into by a group of men. the intruders escaped and ran away. they were chased and beaten up. they were charged with s18 gbh
what two things are always considered when deciding if force was necessary
duty to retreat, pre-emptive strikes
what is meant by pre-emptive strikes
you do not have to wait until you are attacked to defend yourself
what case exemplified pre-emptive strikes
AG’s ref. D’s shop was broken into. fearing further attacks he made petrol bombs. he was charged with possession of explosive substances but coa quashed his conviction as it was correct for d to make preparations in self defence
what factors may the jury take into account when considering if the force was reasonable
the threat of harm, the urgency of the situation, other options available to the defendant
what type of test is the one outlined in the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 for reasonable force and what were they
subjective. s76(3) force was ‘reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be’. s76(7) ‘a person acting for legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action’
which case exemplified excessive force
r v martin. farmer shot at two boys who came onto his property, killing one. self defence was rejected as it was thought that he used excessive force
which act says what about houholders self defence
s43 of the crime and courts act 2013 states that a householder will only not be allowed the defence when ‘grossly disproportionate’ force is used
explain the courts stance on mistaken self defence
the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 states that a defendant is entitled to rely on a genuine belief of circumstance even if he is mistaken
what case outlined mistaken self defence
williams and gladstone. d punched a man who he mistakenly believed was attacking another man. he successfully plead self defence for his charge of abh
name four key criticisms of self defence
- excessive force and impact on murder cases (compare to voluntary manslaughter)
- its an all or nothing defence, unfair? (martin)
- mistaken circumstances being allowed is unfair on the v, compromises justice?
- general uncertainty in scope of reasonable force can lead to inconsistencies between cases.
explain a suggestion for reform of self defence
in scenarios where some force is justified but the defendant has used too much and killed his attacker, juries should be allowed to convict the defendant of manslaughter rather than murder thus avoiding the mandatory life sentence
