What is 'reasonable'?

[shukokaievie]

I'm currently doing a project about self-defence and what is classed as a 'reasonable' act concerning the current UK law (an interest occurred due to my involvement in karate) and I am doing a survey for people's opinions on this matter.

If you have the time, please take part in my own completely anonymous and fairly interesting (if I must say so myself) survey which will take you no longer than 5 minutes.

To what extent is an a Act of Self Defence Acceptable?

Your opinions will be highly appreciated and if you have anything else you wish to share I would be delighted to hear from you.

Thanks.

 

[Tez3]

I would take part in it but looking at the questions I know the legal answers to them so it probably wouldn't work if I filled it in, sorry.

 

[Paul_D]

Firstly it is not for the jury to determine the length of a sentence, that is the judge’s job, it is only the jury’s job to ascertain innocence or guilt.

Secondly the the real life cases which you are basing your questions on are out of date since the introduction of Householder Cases in 2014, and they are therefore not questions that I believe a jury would ever be asked now.

Question 1 & 2. No one would deem attacking someone who is running away (and therefore no longer a threat) as self-defence, this is why in the case you are referring to the person in question was found guilty and sentenced to jail.

Question 3 & 4
The licensed or unlicensed status of the shotgun is wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is where he shot them. In the house or outside the house as they were running away? We all know who you are talking about, and he shot them outside his premises as they were running away, hence he was sent to prison. If he had shot them inside the house, after 2014 when the law was changed, it would have been a very different outcome and it is doubtful in my mind the case would even have been taken to court. He would of course been prosecuted for owning an unlicensed shotgun, but that has nothing to do with self defence.

Question 5 & 6. The fact that the burglar died is irrelevant, it is perfectly legal (and has legal precedence) in the UK to kill people in self defence. What is relevant where the husbands actions. In this case, since the law change in 2014, householders in the UK are now permitted to use Disproportionate Force and will only be prosecuted if they use Grossly Disproportionate Force inside their premises. So unless he continued to stab him, repeatedly, after it was obvious he was dead or incapacitated and therefore no longer a threat, then this case would never make it to court, your questions therefore are not ones a jury would be asked to make, as it would never get that far.

Question 7 & 8
Again, people running away are not a threat, so this is not self defence under UK law. You will be found guilty, end of.

Question 9 & 10.
Again, if she is in her home; unless she continued to beat him repeatedly after it was evident that he was no longer a threat, this case would not even make it to court since the introduction of Householder Cases in 2014. When considering whether or not to prosecute the CPS take into consideration two factors. A) is pursuing a conviction in the public interest, and B) is there the likely hood of security a conviction. In both these cases the answer is no, so the CPS would not even bring this case to court, as there is no likelihood of securing a conviction, nor is it in the public interest to prosecute her.

I appreciate this does no help you anyway in relation to the survey, but if you where to familiarise yourself with householder cases, and re-write the questions with more relevant situations, we could answer them?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm not in the UK, but I did look at the survey. It seemed... poorly worded.