Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Self Defence (areas of self defence (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act…

- - - - shot and killed an intruder
- - - - Nature of the force (ie weapons)
      - Degree of the force
- - - - 1) whether D could have retreated
        
        no duty to retread but will be evident for the jury that D acted reasonably if he retreated as far as he could and did not want to fight
        
        Mcinnes (1971)
        
        Bird (1985)
        
        Julien(1969)
      - 2) whether the threat was imminent
        
        needs to be some immediacy in the threat but D does not have to wait to be hit first.
        
        Attorney General Reference( 1984)
        
        D owed a shop where there was extensive rioting so held petrol bombs in his shop to protect property if required
        
        could be allowed for offences based on possession and prep for attacks provided that possession ceases when danger of attack is no longer imminent
        
        Malnik v DDP (1989)
        
        D was arrested whilst on route to protect to recover a friend's property frm a know violent
        
        unable to rely on the defence as he put himself into the dangerous situation therefore threat was not imminent
        
        R v Keane and Mcrath (2010)
        
        self defence may arise in the case where D started the fight, but only where violence offered by the V was so out of proportion to what the D did that in effect the roles were reversed
      - 3) whether D had made a mistake which led them to believe their actions were necessary in the circumstances
        
        looks at what the D believed it to be at the time even if the mistake was not reasonable to make.
        
        laid down in S76 criminal justice and immigration act (2008)
        
        R v Williams Gladstone 1987)
        
        D saw a youth being dragged along the street by the victim who seen the youth mug a lady and grabbed the youth. D intervened and a fight broke out causing V to have injuries to his face
        
        Jury were told mistake can only be a defense if the mistake was reasonable and was guilty of ABH , Under appeal conviction was quashed as he honestly believed he was preventing an unlawful act
  - - - reasonable force has to be proportionate to the threat
      - not to be regarded as reasonable if force was disproportionate in those cicrumstances
    - - Police were acting to prevent a crime and were mistaken to the facts. Courts will have to take into account facts as they believed them to be
        
        may violate Human Rights
    - - defence will be allowed 25% more force used than was nessecary
        
        Cross V Kirby (2000)
        
        anti-hunting protester has got in argument with the D, a land owner allowing hunting on his land, removed gf from land , V attacked D with baseball bat . so D struck the claimant on the head and fractured his skull causing epilleptic attacks.
        
        ex trupi causa and reasonable force
        
        AG northern ireland 1977
        
        soldier kiled unarmed man believing he's a member of IRA
        
        Jury to decide wether reasonable or excessive and should take into account limited time of reflection
        
        high risk of serious injury or death VS harm that could be avoided by preventing the mans escape if he were a terrorist
- - - - Antiwar protestors trespassed on military ground as a protest against war in Iraq
      - Tried to argue S3 - Trying to prevent an international crime of agression being commited /
      - rejected in court as agression was not a crimeunder national law therefore did not satisfy defence under S3