1854775
Description
Flashcards by abigail_rose, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by abigail_rose
over 9 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Self-Defence: Self-defence/defence of another | Common Law - Consolidated in a statute: Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 |
| Self-Defence: Prevention of Crime | S.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 |
| Defence of Property | Criminal Damage Act 1971 |
| Scope of the defence | Normally a defence for the NFO's Can be used for crimes such as murder |
| Burden of Proof | D has a defence if he uses reasonable & necessary force The burden of proof lies with the prosecution once the defence has been raised |
| Reasonable Force | Was the force necessary? - subjective Was the force reasonable? - objective |
| Subjective: Palmer | Lord Morris: "...a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action" |
| Subjective: Scarlett | D removed drunken man from a pub - believing he would attack him - and killed him Held D's aren't to be convicted even if the force wasn't objectively reasonable! |
| Objective: Owino | D punched V in the face in order to restrain her Held he used excessive force and COA rejected his appeal |
| Martin | D shot V's in the back and convicted of murder COA held psychiatric evidence showing he thought he was in more danger than he actually was was irrelevant! |
| Excessive Force | Self-defence won't be available if the D uses excessive force |
| Clegg | D shot 3 times at a car whilst on duty, at a check point, killing the V D couldn't use S.D. as excessive force was used - there was no danger when he fired the 3rd shot |
| Mistake and Self-Defence | Works where the D makes an honest mistake & the force was reasonable |
| Williams (Gladstone) | D mistakenly thought PC was assaulting youth & attacked him Held D should be judged according to his genuine mistakes - conviction quashed |
| Beckford | PC shot D as he mistakenly believed he was armed Held the D is to be judged on the facts as he believed them to be |
| Mistake, Self-Defence and Intoxication | D can't use self-defence if they make a mistake whilst voluntarily intoxicated |
| O'Grady | D had been drinking & killed his friend after waking to find him attacking him S.D. failed & conviction upheld - voluntary intoxication can't form the basis of a defence for any crime! |
| Pre-Emptive Strikes | Deana - a man isn't obliged to wait until he is attacked before acting in S.D. - he is entitled to get the first blow in if its reasonably necessary to do so! |
| Imminence of Threat: Attorney General's Reference No. 2 | D made petrol bombs as he feared his shop would be attacked again Held someone fearing an attack can make preparations even if doing so breaks the law |
| Imminence Threat: Malnik | D took a weapon with him to confront a violent man who stole from his friend Liable- S.D. isn't valid when the D makes preparations |
| Revenge: Rashford | COA stated the fact the D acted in revenge isn't enough - must take into account the circumstances AND whether the D honestly thought it was necessary |
| Possibility of Retreat | The D doesn't have to retreat from danger |
| Bird | D's ex threw beer over her and she gouged his eye out with a glass S.D. was valid as she didn't need to show retreat |
| Reforms | LC: This area of law needs re-examining!!! |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.