SO YOU CAN SHHOT OR STAB CHAVS

#3
the Telegraph reports said:
'Have-a-go heroes' get legal right to defend themselves

(By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent and Chris Hope, Home Affairs Correspondent. Telegraph.co.uk 16/07/2008).

Home owners and “have-a-go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Act will give them greater legal protection.

They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that "heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...oes-get-legal-right-to-defend-themselves.html
 
#5
er. Hang on, havn't people always had the right to defend themselves?

What about s.3 of the Criminal Law Act, the common-law right to self deefnce - reiterated in Beckford Vs R. which said, amongst other things:

"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

and:


"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."


Sounds like half thought-through tosh to me. Reasonable force, in reasoable circumstances is permitted in english law and always has been. We don't need more laws! Citing the Tony Martin acse is errenous as he was a nutter who shot a man running away and then left him to die. Bad "heat of the moment" decisions are also generally forgiven in the law as Palmer Vs The queen 1971 makes clear:

If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Can we just call him a burglar and have done with him? I suggest using his namesake to take him darn!
 
#7
bensonby said:
er. Hang on, havn't people always had the right to defend themselves?

What about s.3 of the Criminal Law Act, the common-law right to self deefnce - reiterated in Beckford Vs R. which said, amongst other things:

"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

and:


"A man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike."


Sounds like half thought-through tosh to me. Reasonable force, in reasoable circumstances is permitted in english law and always has been. We don't need more laws! Citing the Tony Martin acse is errenous as he was a nutter who shot a man running away and then left him to die. Bad "heat of the moment" decisions are also generally forgiven in the law as Palmer Vs The queen 1971 makes clear:

If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken
The "Reasonable Force" argument only applies to the arrest of criminals rather than self defence. There is no "reasonable force" requirement in self defence although the line has been trotted out for so long everyone seems to believe it. Privy council cases aren't binding anyway.
 
#8
no - as I quote, common law allows for, and limits, force providing it is reaosnable. Beckford Vs R is a precedent when it says:


"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

That has nothing to do with the arrest of criminals.
 
#9
Does this mean, that rather than organising vigilante patrols, going out after dark, in all weathers, looking for the scum - we can now leave the front door/windows open, sit in the comfort of our own arm-chair, and wait to deal with them appropriately, when they enter our place “uninvited” ?!
 
#10
May I also add, you have the right to use reasonable force to eject people from your private property...
 
#11
'Honestly ossifer, I am a modern artist. That piece is merely my work entitled "Cleverly placed pit full of spikes and broken glass beneath the window sill." It goes on exhibition with my "easily accessed plank with spike in end". Of /course/ none of this is designed to severely injur intruders.'

The law for reasonable force has always been there, I think what they are intending to do is get rid of the loopholes that can cause people to be prosecuted for defending themselves/their property. It certainly could use some added protection for the lawful citizen though, instead of the typical 'hurt the hero' policies found under Liabour. I think the last thing I'd think about if there was a burglar in my house would be "Can I legally bat him over his bonce with this here cricket bat?", more "I wonder how hard I'll be able to thwack this fecker without making a mess of my carpet."
 
#12
bensonby said:
no - as I quote, common law allows for, and limits, force providing it is reaosnable. Beckford Vs R is a precedent when it says:


"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

That has nothing to do with the arrest of criminals.

Remind me what the act says and where it refers to self defence. Beckford v R is flawed because it draws on the 1967 act but applies it to a different circumstance. Arguably, the 2008 act being discussed here enshrines the Beckford vR view in law but it wasn't actually true yesterday!

Alternatively, don't bother and have a look at this instead which might provide some amusement:
http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html
 
#13
bensonby said:
no - as I quote, common law allows for, and limits, force providing it is reaosnable. Beckford Vs R is a precedent when it says:


"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

That has nothing to do with the arrest of criminals.
It might well say that but it is a Privy Council opinion and is not binding on English courts. Persausive perhaps but not binding. It cannot therefore enter common law on that basis. It is a charade that has been going on for years and it is frankly astonishing that nobody ever seems to make the connection.
 
#14
R V Beckford isn't privy council....its an appeal court ruling. The Palmer case is a privy council one...

For some reason I can't see you link at work.
 
#15
bensonby said:
er. Hang on, havn't people always had the right to defend themselves?
This new law seems to claify things with an air of common sense rather than bring something new to the table.

Article said:
Until now people have had to prove in court that they acted in self defence but the changes mean police and the Crown Prosecution Service will decide on cases before this stage.
This stop people being dragged before a judge to prove they acted responsibly even though easily proved on arrival of the police. Though i do love how the law came into being.

Article said:
In 2004 Tony Blair promised to review the existing legislation after he admitted there was "genuine public concern” about the issue.

But his pledge was dropped weeks later after the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke concluded that the current law was "sound”.
Followed by

Article said:
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and was announced by Mr Straw last September.

He is understood to have decided new laws were necessary after he was involved in four "have-a go’’ incidents, which included chasing and restraining muggers near his south London home.
Proof that politicos are out of touch with reality until it slaps them in the face?
 
#16
bensonby said:
R V Beckford isn't privy council....its an appeal court ruling. The Palmer case is a privy council one...

For some reason I can't see you link at work.
It's Beckford V R not R v Beckford and it is a Privy Council opinion.:
Privy Council under Lord Griffiths 15 June 1987

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Commw19851989.php

The link I posted earlier is a US one about Right to self defence so probably got filtered. It's quite good, have a look when you get home.
 
#17
ah, I stand corrected. It appears I have been strung along somewhat.

Courts are allowed to consider Privy Council opinions and be influenced by them though aren't they?
 
#19
vvaannmmaann said:
Thats all very well,but please don't call them Chavs.It's not nice and it degrades them.
Link below
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-class-hatred-banned-claims-think-tank.html
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You cannot consider yourself of the Left and use the word,' he added.
'It is sneering and patronising and, perhaps most dangerous, it is distancing, turning the chav into the kind of feral beast that exists only in tabloid headlines.
'This is middle-class hatred of the white working class - pure and simple.'
So the ones seen on the streets are presumably a figment of people's imagination? I don't fink so ...

Anyway, I personally appear to be allowed to continue to call them Chavs, as I am not generally considered "of the Left", so that's OK.

I doubt, however, that keeping my 9mm loaded and handy just in case of an intrusion would represent a good defence of "reasonable response" :D
 
#20
bensonby said:
ah, I stand corrected. It appears I have been strung along somewhat.

Courts are allowed to consider Privy Council opinions and be influenced by them though aren't they?
Indeed they are but it's not binding and it's not really casse law. You and most of the legal profession seem to have been strung along somewhat for many years!

However, at a first glance it seems that this becomes irrelevant because the Privy council opinions have now been enacted as statute in the 2008 act (Section 76):
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb5-l1g76


I think the bigger question is:
If the people have the right to self defence how can they be denied the means?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
brighton hippy The NAAFI Bar 35
A RAC 3
V Current Affairs, News and Analysis 19

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads