Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by 2by4, Jul 16, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. SHHOT? resurched? responce?

    No wonder you're called 2by4 ;)
  3. Quality. As thick as two short pieces of 4by2 or 2by4.
  4. 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."


    "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
  5. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Can we just call him a burglar and have done with him? I suggest using his namesake to take him darn!
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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” ?!
  9. May I also add, you have the right to use reasonable force to eject people from your private property...
  10. '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."

  11. 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:
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. This new law seems to claify things with an air of common sense rather than bring something new to the table.

    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.

    Followed by

    Proof that politicos are out of touch with reality until it slaps them in the face?