Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Defences 2 - Self-defence, infancy, duress and necessity (Self-defence…

- - - - Defence of another - s76(2)(a) - "the common law defence of self-defence..." and s76(10)(b) - "references to self-defence including acting in defence of another person"
      - Defence of property - s76(2()(aa) - "the common law defence of property"
      - Prevention of crime/making arrest - s76(2)(b) - "use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest"
  - - - Defendant must honestly believe that use of force was necessary (subjective)
        
        Mistake - if make a mistake, even if mistake is unreasonable, reasonable force will be allowed (Gladstone Williams)
        
        Exception - not allowed if mistake is caused by voluntary intoxication (R v Hatton)
        
        No duty to retreat - if someone is attacking you, entitled to defence yourself rather than escape - can stand your ground (Bird)
        
        Anticipatory self-defence - can strike the first blow if think someone is going to attack you (Beckford)
        
        Self-defence may be used by an antagonist - less likely to succeed, but can claim self-defence even if started the fight (Forrester)
        
        Force can be used against an innocent third party (Hitchens - threatened by flatmate's ex - flatmate wanted to let ex in the door so defendant slapped her to stop her - conviction upheld on flats but allowed principle in theory)
    - - Householder cases - can use higher degree of force against trespassers - technical meaning
        
        s76(8B) "Where - (a) a part of a building is a dwelling where D dwells, (b) another part of the building is a place of work for D or another person who dwells in the first part, and (c) that other part is internally accessible from the first part, that other part, and any internal means of access between the two parts, are each treated for the purposes of subsection (8A) as part of a building that is a dwelling."
        
        s76(8C) "Where - (a) a part of the building is forces accommodation that is living or sleeping accommodation for D, (b) that other part is internally accessible from the first part, that other part, and any internal means of access between the two parts, are each treated for the purposes of subsection (8A) as a part of a building that is forces accommodation"
        
        s76(5A) degree of force used by D not regarded as reasonable in those circumstances if D believes them to be grossly disproportionate
        
        R (on the application of Denby Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice - even if not grossly disproportionate court still has discretion to reject defence
      - Non "householder" cases - must be proportionate to the circumstances
        
        s76(6) degree of force not regarded as reasonable in circumstances if D believes that to be disproportionate (Owlino)
        
        s76(7)(a) - consider if "a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weight to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action" (Palmer)
- - - - Reasonable belief - only different standard to self-defence for historical reasons
      - (a) Reasonable belief/good cause to fear (Hasan)
      - (b) would a reasonable person have responded in the same way?
        
        Bowen - take into account some vulnerabilities aka if old or pregnant - low IQ not taken into account
        
        Abbott - proportionality important
    - - Cole - owed money - committed crime to get money but no sufficient causal link - hadn't told him to commit offence to pay - person threatening has to nominate offence
      - Valderrama-Vega - threatened to tell people he was a homosexual and threatened serious injury - serious injury only need to be one reason
    - - Hudson v Taylor
      - Hasan
    - - Sharp
      - Shepherd
      - Hasan
      - Ali
- - - - Was defendant compelled to act because he reasonably believes that he was threatened with death or serious injury?
      - Would a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the defendant's characteristics, have responded in the same way?
    - - Martin
      - Pommell
      - Baker and Wilkins - can't be to escape threat of psychological injury