Rationale-based defences Flashcards
1
Q
Beckford v The Queen [1988]
A
- D (police officer) shot someone he believed was shooting at him
- no gun was found -> D convicted -> trial judge said that the belief needed to have been reasonable
- conviction quashed on appeal -> test:
-> a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in the defence of himself or another.
2
Q
R v Hichens [2011]
A
- D slapped his girlfriend cause she allowed her ex to come to their house, and D would get in a violent brawl with the ex
- Court held that in certain circumstances, it is permitted to use force against any innocent 3rd party in order to prevent a crime from being committed -> applicable for self-defence or use of force for prevention of crime under s3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967
- BUT applicability of defence depends on how likely it was for the crime to occur had the violence not happened -> here, violence was unnecessary
3
Q
Palmer v The Queen [1971]
A
- Ds were convicted of murder and sentenced to death
- judge directed that there were only 2 possible verdicts -> guilty of murder or not guilty
- D appealed that they should be allowed a verdict of manslaughter if self-defence is raised
- Court held that this was an all or nothing defence -> not partial
- “a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action”
- “a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be the most
potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken”
4
Q
Devlin v Armstrong [1971]
A
- D incited a riot & threw stones at police officers
- D argued she honestly believed they were about to do something wrong
- Court dismissed appeal -> D didn’t believe in a specific or imminent threat -> her actions were not justified
5
Q
A-G’s Ref (No. 2 of 1983) [1984]
A
- self-defence may allow D to store weapons to ward off an attack -> depends on the circumstances
- in 1981, lots of shops had been looted → defendant’s shop had also been attacked → D stayed in his shop, not sleeping, armed, to defend his shop
- the expected attack never happended → D stated to police that the purpose of the weapons were purely for defence of his shop – purely as a last resort
- Court of appeal said that general fear of violence isn’t enough
- D can defend themselves or their family from imminent atttacks
6
Q
R v Salih [2008]
A
- difference between an imminent and possible attack
- D was found to have a loaded pistol
- ## D said he had weapon with the intention of giving it to the police as an amnesty
7
Q
R v Cockburn [2008]
A
- D had rigged a booby trap on his shed
- a police officer was the one caught by the trap, and sustained injury
- D stated that people had been breaking into his shed
- Court held that only an imminent attack can justify pre-emptive measures
8
Q
R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987]
A
- D saw V attacking a youth and wrestled them off him
- it turned out the youth was a mugger and had been stopped by V
- D appealed that judge had misdirected by saying that the mistaken belief had to be reasonable
- Appeal allowed
- reasonableness is only relevant for establishing whether the belief was genuinely held
- once that is established, reasonableness has no part to play about the mistakeness of the belief
9
Q
The Queen v Dadson (1850)
A
- a police officer shot and wounded an escaping thief
- At the time, any degree of force could be used to arrest a fleeing felon but, when he fired the gun, he did not know who the thief was
- On the basis of the facts which the defendant actually knew, he had no justification to shoot the thief
- conviction upheld
10
Q
R v O’Grady [1987]
A
- D was an alcoholic
- he had drank with his friends
- they went to sleep - he woke up to being hit and mistakenly believed he had to fight back -> woke up in the morning and he was dead
- A defendant is not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which has been induced by voluntary intoxication
11
Q
Taj v The Crown [2018]
A
- D was suffering from a drug and alcohol induced psychotic disorder, which caused paranoia
- D became convinced that Awain was suspicious
- He hit Awain around the head repeatedly with the tyre leaver
- case proceeded on the basis that he was not directly affected by drink and drugs at the time of the offence, but he was affected by the paranoia the earlier alcohol and drug misuse had caused.
- ‘attributable to intoxication’ could cover this case
12
Q
Re A (Children) (Conjoined twins) [2001]
A
- J & M were conjoined; M would eventually kill J
- one of the arguments put forward was the J was being attacked by an innocent party (M) and so the doctors needed to step in for her self-defence
- authority for the principle that a person should be allowed to use reasonable force to defend themselves against an unjustifiable attack even if the attacker isn’t criminally responsible
13
Q
R v Scarlett [1993]
A
- D was a landlord in a pub, 10 mins after closing time, victim (heavily built gentleman) approached bar
- D said he wouldn’t serve him, told him to get out or he’d put him out -> D took his arm to escort him out
- Victim swung his arm in an arc, D thought V would punch him, D grabbed the arms of the victim, and then pushed him on the wall -> as D turned to leave, V fell down the stairs, hit his head, and died
- D charged with manslaughter
- Conviction quashed -> if D thought that the amount of force he used was reasonable, he was entitled to a defence of mistaken belief
- important to balance the subjective belief of D with objective force used
some felt this was a misreading of Gladstone
14
Q
R v Owino [1996]
A
15
Q
Martin (Anthony) v R [2001]
A
16
Q
R v Canns [2005]
A
17
Q
R v Oye [2014]
A
18
Q
Collins v Secretary of State for Justice [2016]
A
19
Q
R v Ray [2017]
A
20
Q
R v Bird (Debbie) [1985]
A
- D was 17, celebrating her birthday
- ex turns up with new girlfriend
- argument ensues, he slaps her & holds her to the wall
- she punches him, forgets she is holding a glass -> convicted of gbh
- D appealed -> judge was wrong to state that for self-defence, it was necessary to show an unwillingness to fight
- Court of Appeal allowed it, and conviction was quashed
- evidence that someone tried to retreat is good to show that D was not the attacker, but it is too much to state that it is required to prove self-defence
21
Q
R v Field [1972]
A
- D was told that V was coming to find him
- he didn’t leave the area
- When V found him, they fought, D beat V up
- D convicted -> Court said he should’ve left when he was told he was being hunted
- CoA stated that decision to use self-defence arises when there is a present threat -> no such threat when he was told victim was looking for him
- he shouldn’t be deprived of self-defence because he stood his ground
- “no duty to retreat could arise until the parties could see one another”
22
Q
R v Browne [1973]
A
- if defendant provokes victim into attacking him, just so he can claim self-defence - no defence of self-defence possible
23
Q
R v Rashford [2005]
A
- A person who starts a fight is still entitled to defend themselves if the victim goes beyond self-defence and escalates the fight
-> the defendant might be expecting a fist fight but the victim draws a knife - It is still the case that the defendant cannot rely on self-defence if they provoked violence intending that it would escalate
24
Q
R v Howe [1987]
A
25
R v Symonds [1998]
26
R v Riddell [2017]
27
R v Martin (Colin) (1989)
28
R v Graham [1982]
29
R v Hasan (Z) [2005]
30
R v Willer [1986]
31
R v Safi [2004]
32
R v Rodger and Rose [1998]
33
DPP for Northern Ireland v Lynch [1975]
34
R v Singh [1972]
35
R v Baker (Janet) [1997]
36
R v Shayler [2001]
37
R v Hudson and Taylor [1971]
38
R v Valderrama-Vega [1985]
39
R v Bowen [1997]
40
R v Goliath (1972)
41
R v Gotts [1992]
42
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884)
43
Buckoke v Greater London Council [1971]
44
R v Kitson (1955)
45
Southwark LBC v Williams [1971]
46
Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech AHA [1986]
47
In Re F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990]
48
R (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2013]
49
St. George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998]
50
R v Pommell [1995]
51
Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation) [2001]
52
R v Thacker [2021]
53
R v Jones [2006]
