Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
self defence - Coggle Diagram
self defence
necessary force
this is judged subjectively. the defendant is judged according to the circumstances they honestly believed to exist
D doesn't have a duty to retreat or be unwilling to fight although this is a relevant factor in deciding whether the force was necessary (Bird; McInnes; CJIA s.76(6a))
D can make a pre-emptive strike they don't have to wait to be attacked (Beckford; AG's ref no2 of 1983)
D is judged according to the situation he honestly believed to exist. this can be a mistaken belief as to the need to use force; provided it is an honest belief, it doesn't have to be a reasonable one (Williams) however the more unreasonable it is the less likely the jury will expect it was honestly held (CJIA s.76 (4)). if the D makes an intoxicated mistake for public policy reasons the defence is denied (O'Grady; Hatton; CJIA s.76(5))
D may still be able to rely on self defence even if he was the initial aggressor/ instigated the need to use force (Rashford)
where the defendant is acting out of revenge or has become the aggressor the defence will fail. if the victim is retreating and if the threat has passed, force will not be regarded as necessary (Clegg; Hussain)
reasonable force
it must be shown that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances the defendant believed to exist (Orwino) this is judged objectively- what ordinary people would consider to be reasonable
the force used but be proportionate to the threat but the D is not expected to 'weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defence action' if he does what he ''honestly and instinctively thought necessary'' the force is strong evidence that the defendant did what was reasonable (Palmer; s.76 (7) CJIA)
-
all of the circumstances are relevant when deciding if the force was both necessary and reasonable including physical characteristics but not psychiatric conditions e/g/ personality disorder (Martin)
what is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. using 'disabling force' may be justified (Cross v Kirby)
introduction
general defence, if successful the D will be acquitted
common law defences but the rules have been supplemented by s.79 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
if the defence is successful the D will avoid liability for the offence. if the defence fails they will remain responsible
-
householders
under s.43 Crime and Courts Act 2013 which amended the CJIA aims to provide wider protection to householders protecting themselves or others in their own home from an intruder. they can use disproportionate force, but it can't be 'grossly disproportionate' to the threat faced