Self-defence is an act of defending yourself or others against means of harm or in the action of crime prevention. As defined under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 it states that ‘a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime. Self-defence is also mentioned in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The CJIA Section 76(1) provides that ‘in deciding whether the force used is reasonable, considerations must be taken into account so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case’.
Self-defence is split into two sections, private defence and public defence. Private defence is the act of defending oneself from the threat of harm, also known as Common Law. Public defence is the act of protecting and defending a member of the general public from the threat of harm, also known as Statute Based Law. Self-defence covers the law on making pre-emptive strikes, the necessity of force used and the reasonableness of force. The use of force can be justified in self-defence and the prevention of crime by determining the burden of proof.
In some situations there can be an overlap, where the claimant cannot rely solely on statutory defence. In the situation of a person not being capable of committing a crime – for example underage, or insane then they would have to rely upon the Common Law. The amount of force used in both must be reasonable. In the case of R v Cousins (1982) it was held that both defences are available to an
Pure Comparative Negligence Rule Most times in self-defense, the accused puts across a countercharge against the accuser on one or more grounds. In such exceptional cases, the ‘pure comparative negligence rule’ is applied. Under this rule, the fault(s) of both the accuser are also taken into account in detail. A comparative analysis is conducted, wherein the fault(s) of both parties are compared along with submitted proof(s) to reach a conclusion.
A review of the events involving the North Charleston, S. Carolina Whitlee Jones murder case as it applies to the Tennessee “stand your ground” statute brings several factors into question. As indicated in the article, South Carolina’s law as does Tennessee’s states that a person having reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm can use deadly force on the unlawful intruder. However, this does not apply to a lawful resident or a person who has a legal right to be in the dwelling, business, or auto (Knapp, 2014). As Jones indicates she removes herself from the danger on several occasions, yet she continues to return, placing herself once again in position to receive serious injury or death from her boyfriend who is legally occupying the
This statute is summarized by the prosecution as meaning that the defendant can only use deadly force if he reasonably
According to law from State of Berea College, self-defense occur with a following situation for Ponder and Yilma: (1) When the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person (2) Deadly force is justifiable to protect himself against serious injury, rape, kidnap or death. Based on characteristic of Walter White, a victim, we can assume that he is not a typical good man, and two girls have to be prepare for dangerous
This means a person can engage in battery while physically protecting themselves, their family, or property from harm as long as they do not use any more force than necessary to prevent an assailant from harming him or her. It could be argued that Morgan acted in self-defense to what he thought was a danger to himself as a result of Robert’s threat from three nights before and the size of the threatening figure approaching him. However, at a distance of thirty yards behind him, it was difficult for him to confirm that the figure was Robert. Also, there is no proof that Samuel offered a verbal or physical threat to Morgan during the night of the shooting; therefore, Morgan did not need to defend himself against Samuel, or the huge figure. Since Samuel, or the huge figure, did not require Morgan to defend himself, the used of a gun as prevention from harm was more than
Imagine an individual, getting ready for their slumber. Now imagine an intruder breaking into there window with the intention to shoot anyone in its way. Recall that the homeowner is unable to legally defend himself and must retreat from the intruder. This scenario can be possible in all 50 states, but only Seventeen states do not give people the right to legally defend themselves, even if confronted with a person holding a weapon. This means a innocent person attempting to defend their family or himself would wrongly get accused if the intruder got injured.
For violent crimes (assault, robbery and rape) guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. In 20% of the self defense incidents, the guns were used by police
Introduction In the matter of R v Francis , the defendant (Glen Reginald Francis) was being tried for the attempted murder of Timothy Udris. On 8th June 2014, Glenn Francis (‘Francis’) attacked Timothy Udris (‘Udris’), who was hit at least two times with a claw hammer to the skull. The Crown submitted that Francis had attempted to murder Udris, under s306 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
I believe that this event is best classified as self-defense. Self-defense is defined as the defense of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
Both of the case involves Religion. Based on the R v. Tutton case, even though the accused was following their religion, it does not help the fact that in the end they still committed murder. In this case, although the father was following his own religion, it still does not help the fact that he still physically beaten the child with a
The appellant had intercourse with the complainant. The issue raised in this case is did the complainant consent to the sexual intercourse. The appellant did not consider whether she consented and proceeded with it anyway. In the judgment of R v Tolmie , when Kirby P was defining inadvertent recklessness, he referred to the statements in DPP v Morgan and
This principle should be used by the general public as well, in case of an incident, to only use self-defense if absolutely necessary. The seventh principle of peel is a really important for everyone to remember. This principal helps people understand that there is not much difference between the public and officers. The principal explains that the police are the public and the public are the police, the only difference is that police are payed and make it their full-time duty for modern police officers and public this is important for people to remember because of big divide between the
It is about being able to defend oneself and perhaps others if a situation presents