Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
52 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the act governing self defence? |
Section 3 criminal law act 1967 |
|
|
What is the criminal law definition ? |
Allows a person to reasonably - • defend himself from an attack • prevent an attack on another •defend his property |
|
|
R v Bird Showing what? |
R v Bird - v slapped d. So d hit back without realising she had a glass in her hand. Showing rule 1 of SD- possibility of retreat |
|
|
R v McInnes Showing what? |
R v McInnes - it is in good sense for a man to defend himself but only reasonably. Showing Rule 1 : Possibility of retreat. |
|
|
Malnik Showing what ? |
Malnik - you cannot use the defence when going to seek the trouble, after going to the authorities. Showing rule 2 : needs to be imminence of threat for SD. |
|
|
AG Ref (no2 of 1983) Showing what ? |
AS Red (No 2 of 1983) - self defended covers preparing of crime. Eg in times of riot. Showing rule 2 of SD : to rely on self defence there needs to be an imminence of threat. |
|
|
Williams (Gladstone) Showing what? |
Williams (Gladstone) - d attracked a youth as he was getting beaten.. actually wrong person and thief got away. Still SD as was a mistake. Showing Rule 3 SD - mistake about need of force. |
|
|
beckford - Showing what? |
Beckford - police officer shot a man he believed was a threat with weapons. Was a mistake but still SD. Showing Rule 3 - mistake about need for force. |
|
|
O’Conner Showing what ? |
O’Conner - was conviction of murder originally. Was intoxicated and attacked a man he feared. SD now. Rule 3 of SD - mistake of need of force. |
|
|
Palmer showing what? |
Palmer - honestly beloved he was going to be attacked. SD. Showing Rule 4 of SD: Reasonable Force. |
|
|
Scarlett Showing what? |
Scarlett - D threw V out of his pub when V was drunk. V hit head and died. Was manslaughter but now SD. Showing Rule 4 : Reasonable Force. |
|
|
Owino Showing what? |
Owino - amount of force is to be judged due to situation. Showing rule 4 : reasonable force. |
|
|
Clegg Showing what? |
Clegg- use of excessive force when shot a man for stealing his car. Showing Rule 5 : excessive force not allowed for SD. |
|
|
McKoy Showing what? |
McKoy - defendant thought he was being arrested so used excessive force to get free. SD NOT allowed. Showing Rule 5 of SD - excessive force not allowed for SD. |
|
|
Beckford (again) Showing what? |
Beckford - doesn’t have to wait for assailant to make first blow. May justify a preemptive strike. Showing rule 6 of SD - don’t have to wait to be attacked. Preemptive strike allowed. |
|
|
What two other statutes cover self defence ? Stating what? |
Section 76 criminal justice and immigration act 2008 - definition of reasonableness. Section crime and court act 2013 - covers all rules of SD now. |
|
|
What is duress by threats? |
It is a defence operating in favour of the defendant who was the victim, when they are pressured to complete a criminal act by another. |
|
|
Valderrama-Vega Showing what? |
Valderramma-Vega- d threatened with murder and a revelation of homosexual if he didn’t export cocaine. Duress allowed. Showing Rule 1 of DbT - threat must be of GBH or death. |
|
|
Hasan Showing what? |
Threat to family if did not burgle. Duress not allowed but under different circumstances it would have been. Showing Rule 2 of DbT - threat must be directly to d or someone close to them. |
|
|
Wright Showing what? |
Threat to boyfriend. Duress allowed. |
|
|
Hudson and Taylor Showing what? |
Hudson and Taylor - committed perjury or serious bodily harm. Duress applicable. Showing rule 3 of DbT- threat must be immediate or almost immediate. |
|
|
Hasan Showing what about DbT? |
Hasan - threat to family if not burgle. - NOT ALLOWED. as he had associated himself with drug dealers. Showing rule 3 DbT- must be immediate .. but he associated himself a while before. |
|
|
Safi Showing what? |
Safi - d need only to show he reasonably beloved threat, and therefore committed hijacking a plane. Showing rule 4: d must be judged by their perception of threat. |
|
|
Cole Showing what ? |
Cole - threatened with violence if not pay money. So he stole from 2 buildings. Duress NOT ALLOWED. Showing rule 5 - must be a link to threat and actions of d. |
|
|
Sharp Showing what? |
Sharp - d associated himself with gang. Threaten violence if didn’t commit robbery. Duress NOT ALLOWED. as he associated himself knowing violent nature. Showing rule 6 of DbT- duress not allowed when voluntary involvement with criminal enterprise. |
|
|
Shepherd Showing what? |
Shepard - gang member tried to get out gang so was threatened violence. Duress ALLOWED as he was unaware of violent nature of gang. Showing Rule 6 - duress not allowed when associating themselves with gang of criminal enterprise. |
|
|
R v Wilson Showing what? |
R v Wilson - d (13) and his father committed murder. Tried to use defence of pressure. Defence not allowed. Showing rule 7 of DbT- defence of DbT not allowed for ANY involvement of murder. |
|
|
Howe Showing what? |
Howe - deference not allowed for murder Showing rule 7 of DbT |
|
|
R v Gotts Showing what? |
R v gotts - DbT not allowed for attempted murder. Showing Rule 7 of DbT. |
|
|
What are the three factors associated with duress of circumstances and necessity? |
• the act is need to avoid inevitable or irreparable evil. •no more should be done then is reasonably necessary for purpose to be achieved. •evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided. |
|
|
Dudley and Stephens |
Dudley and Stephens - two men killed and ate man when stranded on an island. Defence of Duress by necessity not allowed. |
|
|
Willer |
Willer - Ds car was surrounded by youths so drove on a pavement to escape. Duress allowed. |
|
|
Cairns |
Cairns - ds car was surrounded by youths, so he drove and ran over a youth injuring him. Duress allowed. |
|
|
Conway |
Conway - d drive quickly to escape threat of friend. Duress allowed for dangerous driving. |
|
|
Martin |
Martin - duress allowed when d drove while disqualified when wife gave threats of suicide. |
|
|
Pommell |
Pommell - duress by circumstance allowed for all offences apart from suicide. |
|
|
DPP V Harris |
DPP v Harris - d drove through red light when after a run away criminal. |
|
|
Buckoke v GLC |
Buckoke v GLC - firefighter allowed defence of duress when driving through red light in emergency. |
|
|
Tabassum |
D asked several women to take part in a breast cancer survey. Without any qualifications they allowed this .. not convent as they didn’t know the full facts and information. He used fraud and acted as a doctor. |
|
|
Richardson |
Richardson - d, a dentist, carried on procedures of patiences when she was suspended. Not guilty as fraud is only when deception of identity. |
|
|
Olugboji Showing what? |
Olugboja - consent of sex through fear, not consent. |
|
|
R v Clarence 1988 Showing what? |
R v Clarence - man, knowing he had gonorrhea had sex with wife, she didn’t know. Not consent for disease just sex, so not consent. |
|
|
Dica |
Dica - ‘biological GBH’ when d infected v during consensual, unprotected sex. |
|
|
Konzani |
Konzani - under section 20 of offences against the person act 1861, d must disclose infection of hiv with partner before sexual act. |
|
|
Barrel and Harmer |
Burrell and Harmer - d tattooed two children (12&13). Consent ineffective as children. |
|
|
Gillick |
Gillick- children can consent medical treatment, if they can fully understand the implications of proposed treatment. |
|
|
Brown |
Brown - Vincent to be harmed through sexual activity not allowed. |
|
|
AG Ref (no 6 of 1980) |
AG Ref (no 6 of 1980) - generally cannot consent to harm. Except : properly conducted games/sports, lawful Chastisement, reasonable surgical interference, dangerous exhibitions, cosmetic enhancement and horseplay. |
|
|
Billinghurst |
Billingshurst - rugby player punched another player. Punching not allowed in rugby so not conceited so attacker guilty. |
|
|
Barnes |
Barnes - a tackle in football is consent as assumption it would happen. |
|
|
Burrel v Harmer. |
Burrel v Harmer - tattooing of adult is consent. Children cannot consent to this. |
|
|
Wilson |
Wilson - man tattooed initials on wife’s buttocks. Consent allowed as she had agreed. |
