what if the defendant was the agressor?

• what is the significance of the case of r v bird?

  It shows how withdrawing, or showing an unwillingness to fight is good evidence that the defendant is acting reasonably and In good faith, there is no requirement to show an unwillingness to fight or retreat but it is a factor to be take into account.
• which case shows how withdrawing, or showing an unwillingness to fight is good evidence that the defendant is acting reasonably and In good faith, there is no requirement to show an unwillingness to fight or retreat but it is a factor to be take into account?

  r v Bird
• what does section 76 (6 A) of the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 say?

  It states that a person is not under a duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose. however, the possibility that the person could've retreated should be considered a relevant factor when deciding if the degree of force used was necessary.
• what section of which legislation states that a person is not under a duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose. however, the possibility that the person could've retreated should be considered a relevant factor when deciding if the degree of force used was necessary?

  section 76 (6 A ) of the criminal justice and immigration act 2008
• even if the defendant is the initial aggressor, they may use force if the victim's response is wholly disproportionate and seriously threatens the defendant.
• What is the significance of the case of r v rashford?

  It shows that where a defendant is the initial aggressor, they can only use the defence if it was not their aim all along to give themselves an excuse to use much more serious harm- as such, they can only use force if the victim's response is wholly disproportionate and seriously threatens the defendant.
• which case shows that where a defendant is the initial aggressor, they can only use the defence if it was not their aim all along to give themselves an excuse to use much more serious harm- as such, they can only use force if the victim's response is wholly disproportionate and seriously threatens the defendant?

  r v Rashford