Flashcards
Self defence cases
Cards in this deck (19)
- 1Beckford, genuine beliefD was a police officer. Him and other PC's had gone to a house to investigate report of armed man terrorising family. As D approached house he saw a man running out and he shot at him. D believed his own life was in danger b/c he thought man still had a gun when infact he didn't . On appeal conviction was quashed as D genuinely believed his life was in danger - an attack doesn't have to be in progress to justify the defence and a genuine belief in a fact (true or not) that would require self-defence is still a defence for the unlawful act as D truly believes he's in danger.
- 2Cousins, imminent threat, threats to killD believed that a contract had been made to have him killed so he made threats to kill the people responsible. He armed himself and visited father of person he thought was behind the contract and made threats. He was charged and convicted with threats to kill as judge claimed defence was inadmissible as there wasn't immediate danger.
On appeal this was quashed as the threats were made in prevention of a crime and was reasonable in the circumstances to make such a threat. - 3Rashford, admitting intentCA decided that it was possible to plead self-defence to a murder charge, even if D admits to intent e.g. seeking revenge. It depends on the circumstances as the mere fact of seeking revenge doesn't rule out the possibility that the D honestly believes it necessary to defend himself but the force must also be reasonable.
However, in this case D was convicted as the circumstances didn't make it necessary to stab V in the heart. - 4Malnik, imminent threat, D put himself in dangerD armed himself with martial arts weapons and went to house of violent man whom he believed to have stolen cars. Plea of self-defence was rejected b/c he'd placed himself in danger and there was no imminent threat.
- 5AG's reference (No.2 1983) 1984D made petrol bombs after his shop had been attacked in a riot. He was charged with possessing explosives.
CA said D could make preparations in self defence if necessary and so D acquitted. - 6Hussian and another, danger passed/no threatA group of armed men broke into D's house and made threats to him and his family. One of the family escaped and raised the alarm, chasing the attackers down the road leading to causing the attackers GBH. D had placed himself in danger by chasing him and the danger/threat to the V's had passed, so no threat and therefore no self-defence.
- 7Bird, retreating, necessary forceD was celebrating birthday at a house when her ex showed up with his new gf. They began arguing and D poured contents of glass bottle over him. He had her backed into a wall and slapped her, she lunged with her hand which held the glass bottle - this broke and gouged his eye out.
At trial D convicted of malicious wounding as judge directed jury that D must've demonstrated by her actions she didn't want to fight. CA said that direction placed too great an obligation on the D to show a reluctance to fight. There's no requirement for this when claiming SD. However an attempt to retreat may strengthen SD argument. - 8Palmer, reasonable forcePrivy Council case. Lord Morris said D cannot be expected to weigh up exact amount of force to use. If jury thinks D only did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary in moment of crisis that would be seen as reasonable, defensive force/action.
- 9Whyte, reasonable forceCA confirmed Palmer. Lord Lane said jury should be reminded that D's view of danger threatening him at the time is material. Jury decide whether force was reasonable, bearing in mind the facts as D believed them to be at the time.
- 10Scarlett, reasonable force, subjD, a landlord, was convicted of ULAM manslaughter based on the unlawful act of battery. Prosecution alleged D had used excessive force in evicting a drunk from his pub. CA quashed conviction b/c of misdirection.
It was stated jury ought not to convict unless they're satisfied that the degree of force used was more than called for in the circumstances. This was in line with Palmer. It was then mentioned that reasonable force is subjective (from D's view). - 11Owino, reasonable force obj v subjContrary to Scarlett, this case said that reasonable force was neither purely subjective or objective.
- 12Martin, D's character + forceD lived in a lonely farmhouse and awoke to 2 burglars in his house. He shot at them 3x, 1 died. Plea of SD was rejected as CA said SD couldn't take into account D's characteristics - D was suffering from psychological problems meaning he perceived danger to be worse than an 'ordinary person' would.
- 13Cairns, D's character + forceCA followed decision in Martin (cannot consider character) and held that when deciding whether D had used reasonable force it wasn't appropriate to take into account whether D was suffering from psych condition which may have caused delusions that he was about to be attacked, except in exceptional circumstances which would make the evidence especially high in quality. "It cannot be right that the more psychotic a D may be the greater his chances of acquittal b/c of his genuine delusions."
- 14Oye, D's characterPolice were called to a cafe where the D was behaving oddly. D threw crockery at police, was arrested, taken to the station where he continued to behave oddly (drinking water out of toilet cistern). D moved to custody suite and became more aggressive, punched female officer (breaking jaw) and was charged with assault occassioning ABH plus 2 accounts of affray. D's defence - he thought police had demonic faces and were agents of evil spirits.
CA confirmed Cairns & Martin rule. - 15The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, reasonable force & mental illnessThis Act hadn't altered the requirement for the force used to be reasonable. If D's perceptions were delusional due to mental illness the defence would be insanity not SD. Otherwise, the more deluded the D, more likely to be acquitted on ground of SD. Insane person couldn't/shouldn't set the grounds of reasonableness as to the degree of force used by reference to his own insanity. Insanity allows the courts to impose hospital and treatment orders and detain the D as long as necessary.
- 16Clegg, excessive forceD was a member of the British army and was stationed in NI at a checkpoint. Car approached the barrier at speed with headlights on. D fired 3 shots through the window as it approached and continued to shoot after the car had gone through - a female passenger was killed, she was shot in the back, it killed her. Forensic evidence showed fatal shot was fired with car 10 yards past the barrier.
D was on trial for murder and pleaded SD but trial judge said couldn't be SD b/c once the shot was fired the car had passed and so D wasn't in danger, therefore the force was excessive. Conviction was upheld by CA. - 17AG's Ref (No.1 1975) 1977"It may be that a strong case can be made for an alteration of the law to enable a verdict of manslaughter where the use of some force was justifiable (but excessive force was used) but that is a matter of legislation and not for judicial decision."
- 18Williams, mistake & SDMan saw a youth rob a woman in the street so he grabbed the youth and a struggled occurred. D arrived to see man punching youth and punched the man. D was charged with ABH. He claimed he had made an honest, mistaken belief. Jury accepted the defence & D was acquitted as if D honestly mistakenly used forced (reasonable or excessive) in SD. Jury looked at facts as D believed them to be (subj).
- 19O'Grady, mistake, intoxicatedIf D is voluntarily drunk and makes a mistake about the use of SD he will have no defence. D couldn't rely on mistaken used of force in this case due to being intoxicated. S76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act confirmed this.
Information
- Description
- A level Law Flashcards on Self defence cases , created by Alysia Bradley on 07/11/2016.
- Created by
- Alysia Bradley
- Views
- 0
- Rating