Self-defence eval

Question 1

P:All or nothing nature of the defence

Answer 1

Dev: Unfair on defendants as defebce either succeeds or fails - may fail on something small but would leave D with no proection
E.g. r v clegg, 4th bullet no self-defence leaving D unfair
E:However sentence can be reduced to reflect the necessary use of force

Question 2

P:Unclear when force is necessary

Answer 2

Dev: Defence still allowed if D has opportunity to retreat but doesnt
However does this mean force is not actually necessary
Seeb in s.76(6A) CJIA and R v Bird - two females fighting over a man, D threw a drink over V but still allowed defence when V hit D first and D retaliated
Seems to give defendants too much leniency
However the jury still have to take into account whether D’s actions were reasonable

Question 3

P: Defence has been allowed for pre-emptive strikes

Answer 3

Dev: Defence still applies where a defendant is preparing for a possible future attack which hasnt happened, seems too lenient as no specific intent
Seen in AG’s ref 2 of 1983 - shopkeeper used defence against charge for possession of weapons as he prepared petrol bombs against looters
E: However there is a question about whether the law would be properly protecting the public if they expected a legitimate threat to be carried out before the defendant could react

Question 4

P: Defendants characteristics are not taken into account

Answer 4

Dev: Factors such as mental illness of D cannot be taken into account when jury decide if reasonable
Seen as unfair on D as conditions can make them react unreasonably
Seen in R v Oye - D believed due to psychosis he was saving the world (self defence not allowed as psychosis not taken into account)
E: However there are alternative defences such as insanity

Question 5

P: reforms to the law

Answer 5

Dev: No current proposals as law has been amended fairly recently (2008 - CJIA)
However householder cases are always controversial and there is a call for consistency
also there is an issue with compensation, as a defendant who fails at using self defence would have to pay compensation to the victim
R v hussain, householder chased a burglar out of his house and attacked him as he was running away, D had to pay compensation as defence failed, even though V had been burgling D