Criminal law- Self-Defence
R v Bird
gives us the authority that D must not be acting in revenge
R v Hussain
3 men including the victim broke into Munirs house, they were threatening M and his family with weapons. M threw a table at the victim and the victim fled and was then chased by a group of men including tookeer, who was Ms brother. they chased the V and they were armed with cricket bats. T and the other men caught up with the V and V suffered serious injuries. a factured skull, brain injury ect. the court held that there was no doubt that the only person committing a crime inside the house was the victim, but the crisis came to an end when the victim left the house. no one was acting in self defence
Dadson
- D cannot rely on the justifying circumstances of his or her actions of which he or she is not aware
- D was a constable who was on duty watching over a small woodland area from which timber had been stolen. the V emerged carrying some of this timber. the D called out to him and V ran away. as V was running away the D shot him so he could then go and arrest him. D was convicted of shooting the V with intent to cause GBH. he claimed his actions were justified as he was shooting to arrest him, an escaping fellon. D was not aware that the V was a fellon. thereofre he could not argue that his use of force was justified.
Julien
No duty to retreat – It is not the law that a person threatened must take to his heels and run but what is necessary is that he should demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight.
Beckford
D was a police officer and he claimed that the person he shot had a gun and had been shooting at him. this was a mistaken belief. a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to attack first.
Devlin v armstrong
during a riot in london the D urged others to build a baracade and throw petrol bombs at police officers. she believed that the police where about to attack. the defence of self defence may afford a defence where the party raises it using force, not meaning to counter an attack but warn off or prevent an attack which he has honestly anticipated.
Fegan
D was a roman catholic who married a protestant and lived in a protestant area. him and his wife were subjected to threats and beatings, he went out and bought a revolver and amunition which he hid in a cupboard in his house. he was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and he argued he had the gun for a lawful purpose. the court held that you can arm yourself for your own protection if the need for it arises, but you might still be guilty of an offence.
AGs reference (no 2 of 1983)
D made petrol bombs at a time when extensive riots were taking place in that area. the defendant claimed to have made them for a lawful purpose, that purpose being self defence. the court said the object for which he had made the bombs was lawful under this legislation however he had committed another offence under the explosive substances act.
Evans v Hughes
H was found on a public highway carrying a short metal bar, he was charged of being in possession of a weapon as he was in a public place. his reason was that he had been attacked 7 days earlier so he had it in self defence. the court held that he had reasonable course to fear a violent attack and that he was carrying it for self defence and not any aggressive purposes.
Williams (Gladstone)
- williams saw M arresting a youth, M said he was a police officer but failed to produce proof. Williams believing that the youth was being unlawfully assaulted, ended up assaulting M. M was a police officer. the court held that D should be held to what he thought be true even if it was not, it is a subjective test. we are looking for the Ds genuine and honest belief on those facts.
- We judge D according to his view of the facts even if he turns out to be mistaken – subjective test
- A genuine belief – need not be reasonable
R v Yaman
D owned a kebab shop and he saw two men in his shop when it was closed. D believed that there was a burglary taking place, so he went in and he hit one of the men, as it turned out one was an engineer, one was a warrant officer and one was a lock smith, and they had a warrant to enter the shop. at the trial initially the judge invited the jury to think about whether the Ds belief was reasonable and on that point it was held that the trial judge mislead the jury now we know that it is a subjective test of whether the mistake was honest and genuine, not reasonable.
AG for NI reference
What amount of force is reasonable in the circumstances is a question for the jury. The jury should consider the circumstances in which the decision to defend oneself is made and remember that this decision is not made in the calm analytical atmosphere of the court room with the benefit of hindsight but in a brief second or two.
Palmer v the queen
It will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.
Owino
- A D must be judged in accordance with his honest belief ...but the jury must then decide whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be
- Force used must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances as D subjectively believes exist
R (collins)
in collins we had this challenge to the house-hold provisions. in collins there was an intruder who entered his house through an unlocked door and collins confronted the intruder and forced him into a headlock and on the ground and then sat on him until the police arrived. there was other people in the house who were concerned with the level of force used was too much but collin stayed there. V ended up sustaining quite serious brain injuries due to the lack of air. CPS decided not to prosecute him in this case. the decision was reviewed by a specialist prosecuter who said that a jury would be likely to find that a house holder had honestly believed it necessary to use that amount of force till the police arrived.
R v Ray
Although the jury’s ultimate focus is still on whether the force used was reasonable, a householder who uses disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate force, might act reasonably... it will often be helpful to spell out the kind of circumstances which the jury should consider in determining whether the force used by a householder was reasonable. Those circumstances might include: the shock of coming upon an intruder, the time of day, the presence of other help, the desire to protect the home and its occupants, the vulnerability of the occupants, particularly children, or the picking up of an object (such as a knife or stick that was lawfully too hand in the home) the option of retreat is unlikely to arise in many cases and therefore the degree of force used, although otherwise appearing to be disproportionate, might none the less be assessed as reasonable
R v Day
students staying at a friends accommodation, another student came in and there was an altercation and a student ended up using force in self defence against this other student intruder and she was covered by the householder provision so it is extended to the guests there
Martin (Anthony)
tony martin was a farmer that was living sort of in this remote farmhouse. a couple of intruders came in and he got his shot gun and fired at them as they were running away. tony martin had a paranoid personality disorder and he argued that this was relevant to both the issues of whether the amount of force was necessary and also whether the force used was reasonable. court rejected his plea of self defence
R v Canns
The law is that defendant’s do not set their own standards of reasonableness .... It is for the jury, considering all circumstances, but not the psychiatric condition, to set the standard of reasonableness
Oye (Seun)
- the D believed that evil spirits were attacking him, these “evil spirits” ended up being police officers, and despite this he could not rely on this fact to support his self defence claim
- An insane person cannot set their own standard of reasonableness as to the degree of force
Browne
The need to act must not have been created by conduct of the accused in the immediate context of the incident which was likely or intended to give rise to that need
Harvey
‘tables had been turned’
R v Keane
Self defence may arise in the case of an original aggressor but only where the violence offered by V was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed
what does self-defence cover?
common law- dutty- people can act to defend them selves. williams, people can defend another
statute- s3 criminal law act 1967, prevention of a crime
what are the parameters of the defence?
it is not confiend to violence offences; can be relied on where D uses force to prevent other types of crime as in R v Morris.
the defence of property is not available if no unlawful act was committed in DDP v Bayer
can be used in dangerous driving in Riddell
cannot be used for struction in Oraki v DDP
what does the use of force must be necessary mean?
must not be acting in revenge- R v Bird
once the crisis ends, self defence cannot be used- R v Hussian
D cannot rely on the justifying circumstances f their actions they are not aware of- Dadson
there is no duty to retreat however must demonstrate an unwillingness to right in Julien, a failure to show this will be a factor taken into account in bird
what about pre-emptive strikes?
some circumstances can justify a pre-emptive strike in Beckford
the anticipated attack must be imminent in Devlin v armstrong
what are the rules around preping with weapons?
they can arm themselves for protection, although in doing so, they may committ another cirme, Fagan, AGs ref no2 of 1983
D could have a reaosnable excuse for possessing an offencive weapon if there was an imminent threat as shown in evan v hughes
what about if D has a mistaken belief about the need to defend?
we judge D according to his view of the facts even if he turns out to be mistaken- williams (gladstone)
it must be a genuine belief- not reasonable
however if the belief is induced by voluntary intoxication, D cannot rely on this defence. R v O'Grady.
what is the amount of force that can be used in non-householded cases?
this is assessed objectively and flexibly and it is a question for the jury- AG for NI ref
it is appreciated that they cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of force necessary- palmer v the queen
D must be judges according to his honest belief- owino
what is the legislation which states the amount of force for non-householder cases?
CJAI 2008 s76(6)- the degree of force used y D is not to be geguarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate
R v Keane and McGrath- reasonable and proportionate mean the same thing
what is the amount of force to be used in householder cases?
crime and courts act 2013 5A- the degree of force used by D is not to be reguarded as havng been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportinate
collins said there are two questions to be put to the jury
1. was the degree of foce used by D grossly disporportionate in the circumstances as he believed them to be; if not then,
2. was the degree of force used reaosnable incircumstances as he believed them to be? if yes, then he has a defence
house holder cases are extended to guests- R v Day
what circumstances can be taken into account?
judges can take into account physical characteristics but only in exceptions circumstances in deciding whether excessive force has been used- Martin (anthony)
D does not set there own standard of reasonableness, it is for the jury, considering all circumstances, but not psychiatric condition, to set the standard of reasonableness- R v Canns
an insane person does not set their own standard- oye (suen)