Self Defence
Self Defence
Section 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: The two part test for self defence is the force used must be necessary and the force used must be reasonable. The force must not be excessive.
Necessity of force: Section 76(3) was the force used necessary in the circumstances that the defendant believed them to exist. Section 76(4) the force can be necessary even if it is a mistake, so long as it is a reasonable mistake to make.
Dewar: Held the defendant honestly believed he needed to use force to protect his son.
Reasonable force: Section 76(7) there is evidence that the person has only done what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for the legitimate purpose. That a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to an exact measure the nicety of the necessary action.
Excessive: Palmer; Was the force used wholly proportionate to the threat.
Martin: Held the defendant used excessive force as the threat had passed.
Extra Cases
Gladstone Williams: Held self defence succeeded as it is based on the defendant's genuine belief.
DPP v Armstrong-Braun: Held the use of a weapon to hit the victim was excessive, not reasonable force.
R v Salih: Held fire arms cannot be used for lawful self defence unless the defendant can show that he was in fear of an imminent attack at the time of possession.
Bird: Held the defendant doesn't need to show a reluctance to fight.
Section 76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: The two part test for self defence is the force used must be necessary and the force used must be reasonable. The force must not be excessive.
Necessity of force: Section 76(3) was the force used necessary in the circumstances that the defendant believed them to exist. Section 76(4) the force can be necessary even if it is a mistake, so long as it is a reasonable mistake to make.
Dewar: Held the defendant honestly believed he needed to use force to protect his son.
Reasonable force: Section 76(7) there is evidence that the person has only done what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for the legitimate purpose. That a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to an exact measure the nicety of the necessary action.
Excessive: Palmer; Was the force used wholly proportionate to the threat.
Martin: Held the defendant used excessive force as the threat had passed.
Extra Cases
Gladstone Williams: Held self defence succeeded as it is based on the defendant's genuine belief.
DPP v Armstrong-Braun: Held the use of a weapon to hit the victim was excessive, not reasonable force.
R v Salih: Held fire arms cannot be used for lawful self defence unless the defendant can show that he was in fear of an imminent attack at the time of possession.
Bird: Held the defendant doesn't need to show a reluctance to fight.
Comments
Post a Comment