Self-defence essay arguments:

• One of the arguments relating to Self-defence is whether or not force is necessary. One of the benefits of this is that Section 76(6A) CJIA 2008 now makes it clear that a person is not under a duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose. However one of the drawbacks of this stage of the stage is that this is a question for the jury and, as with all questions for the jury, may be difficult for them to make a decision; in particular, whether a victim has to retreat before using force as in R v Bird (1985). This is turn leads to unfair and unjust outcomes.
• Householder cases: One of the benefits is that it is morally fair that Section 76(6A) CJIA 2008 (an amendment added by s 148 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012) now makes it clear that a person is not under a duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose. But the possibility that the defendant could have retreated is to be considered when deciding whether the degree of necessary.
• However one of the drawbacks of a householder case is that the law now appears to support the view that a householder has a moral right to defend themselves or their property using force, but only to a certain level (and a higher level than before the 2008 Act was introduced). This means that there will be a reduced amount of prosecutions for people who have committed a crime. Thus leading to unjust outcomes.
• Statutory confusion: The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was passed to clarity the communes on selfdefence. Section 76(6) of the Act requires that the amount of force used in the circumstances as the defendant. believed them to be should be reasonable.
• However, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 now gives a wider defence to householders where an intruder enters their property. They can use the defence, provided that the degree of force was not 'grossly disproportionate. For other cases, the degree of force used must not be disproportionate. R V Ray (2017) tried to assist judges summing up to a jury who have to consider the application of evidence and words that have small differences in meaning. (Part 1)
• It is vital, when summing up in cases where the householder's defence is raised, that the judge explains to the jury that the law gives a little more protection to a householder in his own home. Thus breaking the impartiality of the judge from the decision making of the jury. (Part 1)
• The morality issue: It is morally right that a person should be able to use force to defend themselves and their property. This should apply whether the person who uses force is a householder or acting outside a house. But limits have to be set on what force can be used to prevent people from taking the law into their own hands. If the limits are exceeded, then self-defence cannot be used and the person who uses force will be at fault.
• However, the level of fault can be taken into account by the judge when passing sentence. This can be particularly unfair for a person who kills another while claiming to act in self-defence. If convicted, they must be given a life sentence.