Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK

[Juany118]

Actually @Tez3 . As you obviously know the system better, in Great Britain isn't Self Defense, for practical purposes an affirmative defense. As I said in the US a couple States set up a mechanism to do away with this. What happens is a Defendant declares in the court they are making a "self-defense" claim. Upon that claim being made the Prosecution must produce evidence that proves otherwise. The defense need do nothing.

If I understand the process in the UK correctly there is no such trigger. So if a Defendant is arrested and the Prosecution can prove that the defendant killed someone, would not the defendant have to produce evidence of some sort it was self defense to argue that it was self defense?

That is what an affirmative defense is. In say a "regular" murder case the defense only needs to attack the State's evidence, not out forward any of their own, but it seems to me in the UK, if you go to trial, you would have to present evidence as the defendant. Simply saying "it was self defense, the defense rests" doesn't appear to cut it.

Now of course the Prosecution would have to be able to refute it BUT the Defense has to present something.

 

[Tez3]

So if a Defendant is arrested and the Prosecution can prove that the defendant killed someone, would not the defendant have to produce evidence of some sort it was self defense to argue that it was self defense?

British Self Defence Governing Body - Law Relating to Self Defence

 

[Juany118]

British Self Defence Governing Body - Law Relating to Self Defence

Well based on that I would say affirmative defense applies as I said. The Defendant would still have put up some evidence saying "the defendant hit the 'victim' with a cricket bat because the 'victim' was charging the defendant with a tire iron.". Now the Prosecution would have to prove something like "the victim had the tire iron because he had just finished changing his tire and the defendant hit him from behind" of course but the defence needs to present SOMETHING, unlike a normal case.

It may seem like legal minutia but that ultimately is what the law is about, the minutia.

 

[Tez3]

We don't hit people with 'tire irons' (what on earth are they anyway?) here lol. The point here though is that if it's a true self defence case here it doesn't go to court, only the iffy ones do which often turn out to be not self defence, alcohol comes into it a lot sadly. This means there is rarely a defence counsel that needs to put up any proof that it was self defence hence the lack of cases of true self defence, it's been decided beforehand not to prosecute. the CPS has to have enough evidence to prove it wasn't self defence and quite honestly in cases of self defence they look very hard at the case to ensure that it wasn't self defence. In fact despite what the media and the public think no case of self defence which actually was straight forward self defence has come to court in many years. The cases that have come up have done so because they were ambiguous or more complicated to work out, then the jury decides directed by the judge. Self Defence | Criminal Law Cases | Law Teacher

The Defendant would still have put up some evidence saying "the defendant hit the 'victim' with a cricket bat because the 'victim' was charging the defendant with a tire iron.". Now the Prosecution would have to prove something like "the victim had the tire iron because he had just finished changing his tire and the defendant hit him from behind" of course but the defence needs to present SOMETHING, unlike a normal case.

If it were straightforward self defence and the evidence supported it there would be no case, the problem would come if it looked like a fight or altercation rather than a case of self defence then it'd go to court and the defence counsel would try the self defence. the cases quoted in the link I've put up are all cases that have come up because the actions of self defence are evident and need to be examined. Did the woman 'forget' she had a glass in her hand, did the landlord really just place the man down or did he push him down the stairs? As for the petrol bombs!

While self defence is clearly laid out here and is sympathetically looked at by the CPs there are alwsy those who will use that as an excuse for something they have done andx is against the law. That's what complicates cases and that's what gets the media and public riled up because they don't always get what acutally happened.

 

[Juany118]

We don't hit people with 'tire irons' (what on earth are they anyway?) here lol. The point here though is that if it's a true self defence case here it doesn't go to court, only the iffy ones do which often turn out to be not self defence, alcohol comes into it a lot sadly. This means there is rarely a defence counsel that needs to put up any proof that it was self defence hence the lack of cases of true self defence, it's been decided beforehand not to prosecute. the CPS has to have enough evidence to prove it wasn't self defence and quite honestly in cases of self defence they look very hard at the case to ensure that it wasn't self defence. In fact despite what the media and the public think no case of self defence which actually was straight forward self defence has come to court in many years. The cases that have come up have done so because they were ambiguous or more complicated to work out, then the jury decides directed by the judge. Self Defence | Criminal Law Cases | Law Teacher



If it were straightforward self defence and the evidence supported it there would be no case, the problem would come if it looked like a fight or altercation rather than a case of self defence then it'd go to court and the defence counsel would try the self defence. the cases quoted in the link I've put up are all cases that have come up because the actions of self defence are evident and need to be examined. Did the woman 'forget' she had a glass in her hand, did the landlord really just place the man down or did he push him down the stairs? As for the petrol bombs!

While self defence is clearly laid out here and is sympathetically looked at by the CPs there are alwsy those who will use that as an excuse for something they have done andx is against the law. That's what complicates cases and that's what gets the media and public riled up because they don't always get what acutally happened.

I definitely have read some articles about the 2008 Law Change where they gave more discretion to Police and Prosecutors not to bring charges, I was talking about only if you end up in a court room, so I think that is our issue, a little misunderstanding there.

As for a tire iron

You now have me curious as to what they call them in England lol.

 

[Tez3]

They are wheel braces lol

I've never dealt with anything SD related that went to court, they've never gone that far.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They are wheel braces lol

I've never dealt with anything SD related that went to court, they've never gone that far.

Here in the US, the most common usage of "braces" is for teeth. Now I'm imagining a car with those on its wheels.
(Another usage of "braces" would be the things that hold pants up, if you're not wearing a belt, also called "suspenders". That image isn't much better.)

 

[Tez3]

Our suspenders are much much sexier, it's what women have to hold stockings up, the things men like better than tights.

 

[Paul_D]

the things men like better than tights.

And some women, as they don't have to pull them down to go pee ;-)

 

[Tez3]

When you think of what tights do when pulled over criminals heads to hide their identity imagine what your bum looks like in tights!