Self-Defence

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Edward
  • Created on: 22-02-16 12:37
Palmer v R (1971)
Self –defence is a common law defence which permits a def to use reasonable force to protect himself if he honestly believes that the use of force is necessary
1 of 18
Lobell (1957)
Whilst the def bears evidential burden of proving self-defence, the prosecution bears legal burden of disproving self-defence beyond reasonable doubt
2 of 18
R v Palmer (1971)
Test: (i) subj question of whether def honestly believed that the use of force was nec; (ii) objective question of whether amount of force used was reasonable
3 of 18
Beckford (1988)
If def mistakenly believed himself to be under attack, or to be under an attack more serious than it really was, then he is judged on the facts as he believed them to be, even if his mistake was an unreasonable one
4 of 18
Williams (Gladstone) (1987)
The def’s mistake does not preclude him from relying on self-defence provided that his belief that force was necessary was honestly held
5 of 18
Bailey (1995)
The def is entitled to use force in response to an apprehended assault and does not have to wait until he is attacked (requires honest rather than reasonable belief)
6 of 18
Bird (1985)
There is no duty on def to retreat-there are circumstances where def might reasonably react immediately
7 of 18
Hussain (2010)
Where the def acts in retaliation or to exact revenge, this will not constitute nec force
8 of 18
Rashford (2005)
The fact that the def was the initial aggressor does not mean that self-defence is unavailable
9 of 18
Keane (2010)
The defence is still available if the violence offered by the V is so out of prop’n to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed
10 of 18
Devlin v Armstrong (1971)
The danger must be sufficiently imminent
11 of 18
A-G’s Ref (1983)
Def cannot rely on defence where he prepared for future probable attacks, e.g. carrying a knife around in case of an attack
12 of 18
Hussey (1925)
Defence of property is a valid defence (e.g. in burglary)
13 of 18
Martin (Anthony) (2001)
However, defence of property will be unlikely to provide defence in killing someone
14 of 18
Owino (1996)
It is an objective question with a subj element- the def must use reasonable force in the circumstances as he believed them to be
15 of 18
Oatridge (1992)
Question is: was the response commensurate with the attack
16 of 18
Clegg (1995)
Where a def uses excessive or disproportionate force, his self-defence will not be successful
17 of 18
Martin (Anthony) (2001)
a jury is not entitled to take into account psychiatric evidence about the def’s mental state when determining whether def’s force was reasonable
18 of 18

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Whilst the def bears evidential burden of proving self-defence, the prosecution bears legal burden of disproving self-defence beyond reasonable doubt

Back

Lobell (1957)

Card 3

Front

Test: (i) subj question of whether def honestly believed that the use of force was nec; (ii) objective question of whether amount of force used was reasonable

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

If def mistakenly believed himself to be under attack, or to be under an attack more serious than it really was, then he is judged on the facts as he believed them to be, even if his mistake was an unreasonable one

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

The def’s mistake does not preclude him from relying on self-defence provided that his belief that force was necessary was honestly held

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Criminal resources »