Right to defend yourself and right to use force in prevention of crime
What must the force used be
reasonable and what they honestly thought was necessary
What did the case of Gladstone Williams say?
if D has a ’genuine mistaken belief’ reasonably or not the defence still stands.
Is a drunken mistake sufficient?
No. Case of ‘O’Grady’
The case of R V Hussain & another says what?
Force used after the danger isn’t sufficien.
What does the Bird case say?
There is no duty to retreat, can make a pre emptive strike.
Is a full defence and leads to a non guilty verdict
R V Rashford- the defendant as the aggressor. May use force is victim's response is wholly disproportionate and seriously threatens the defendant provided that this wasnt their aim all along.
basic idea;
common law defence as amended by the CriminaJustice and Immigration Act 2008 and,
the statutory defence in s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 of self defence in prevention of a crime
is the defendant suffering from delusions: R V Seun Oye
defendants genuine belief can include delusions resulting from a psychiatric condition or another condition such as PTSD.
s76(6a) says there is no duty to retreat.
s76(6)- was the force used proportionate.
Objective test and considers a balance between risk of harm to the defendant and risk of harm to the victim.
A householder case can use disproportionate force to protect himself and others in the house but not grossly disproportionate force.
to be a householder case;
force must be used by D while in or partly in a building
D must not be a trespasser
D mustve believed the victim to be a trespasser
householder cases:
R V Clegg
R V Martin
the statutory defence: s3(1)Criminal Law Act 1967
It is a subjective test as to whether the defendant believed that force was necessary in the prevention of crime or in assisting the lawful arrest. Reasonable force is an objective test.