self defence eval

• positive - a person will still be allowed to plead self defence even if they strike the first blow

  pre emptive strikes (R v Beckford)
• positive - most self defence occurs on 'spur of the moment' so makes allowances in deciding whether the response was reasonable
• negative - defence will fail completely if the force is regarded as excessive such as in (R v Martin) and (R v Clegg)
• negative - what is excessive force? law says do not have to 'weigh to a nicety' but says force cannot be excessive

  confusing for court
• positive - allows self defence to be used by people who make honest mistakes and need to use force

  (Gladstone Williams)
• negative - intoxicated mistake not allowed, def cannot be mistaken

  (R v O'Grady) too harsh, intoxication is a defence to specific intent crimes
• reforms - alternative conviction of manslaughter to combat 'all or nothing' nature of the defence.

  CJA 2009 says if D suffers LOC they may be able to successfully raise this partial defence to murder when self defence fails for being excessive
• reforms - O'Grady rule abolished, self defence induced by intoxication should operate as a defence
• pro - householder cases have more protection, their house is a safe place of refuge
• pro - d not expected to weigh up exact amount of force
• pro - protects people, should be able to protect yourself to bring justice
• con - d's characteristics aren't considered
• con - all or nothing defence, harsh as leaves people defenceless if unsuccessful
• con - expects jurors to put themselves in d shoes to decide what they honestly believed is necessary