Self-defense is now ILLEGAL in the UK

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think it has to be taken in a different context to work under UK law.

Are you absolutely sure you know the context in my head?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my view there's only one reason why someone would conceal a hand in a jacket pocket, and continued concealment coupled with aggressive language and invasion of personal space is suspicious and enough of a justification for me personally. In punching once and running, I acted in good faith to defend myself from what I perceived as and believed was a potential stabbing.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

That first sentence is where you may have problems. There are MANY reasons why a person might have a hand in their pocket. You've used the word "conceal", which already draws a conclusion not in evidence (that they are hiding the hand). Here are a few reasons a person might have their hand in their pocket, besides having a weapon in it:

• Arm injury (I actually did this a lot when I had my shoulder injury)
• Disfigured hand (being self-conscious)
• They were about to pay (wallet or money in that pocket) and simply didn't take the hand out
• Phone in that pocket (they think they need to call the cops on you)

I could think of others.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually, the defendant's perception of events is all that matters. If they believe and can reasonably demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith in defending themselves, they're good. UK case law demonstrates this adequately.

US and UK law, interpretation of written law and case law regarding self defence are very different.

The choice is mine, and I've done my research and lived it, so...

That "reasonably" is the issue, however. Is it reasonable (in the view of the court) that there is only one reason a person would have a hand in their pocket while arguing with someone?

 

[Tez3]

That "reasonably" is the issue, however. Is it reasonable (in the view of the court) that there is only one reason a person would have a hand in their pocket while arguing with someone?

Here though before it gets to court the CPS will decide whether it's in the public interest to take it to court, if they don't feel that they can argue it was unreasonable force AND can prove it they won't continue with the case. In court of course the prosecution has to argue and prove their case so they have to have what they think is a watertight case, without their being room for doubt that a jury can jump on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here though before it gets to court the CPS will decide whether it's in the public interest to take it to court, if they don't feel that they can argue it was unreasonable force AND can prove it they won't continue with the case. In court of course the prosecution has to argue and prove their case so they have to have what they think is a watertight case, without their being room for doubt that a jury can jump on.

Okay, substitute "CPS" where I had "court", and my point still stands. I wouldn't want to depend upon someone looking at a situation where I blasted a guy in the face for talking smack and having a hand in his pocket and deciding that was reasonable. They could just as easily decide I assaulted the guy, and then we're down a path that wasn't necessary. Besides that, I've escalated the conflict. If that punch doesn't put him down (and there's no guarantee), then I'm about to find out for sure what's in that pocket. Even if it's only a fist, I'm in a different situation than I was.

 

[Juany118]

Here though before it gets to court the CPS will decide whether it's in the public interest to take it to court, if they don't feel that they can argue it was unreasonable force AND can prove it they won't continue with the case. In court of course the prosecution has to argue and prove their case so they have to have what they think is a watertight case, without their being room for doubt that a jury can jump on.

The same thing happens here though. Actually it often doesn't even get to the County Prosecutor. The investigating Detectives or even Officers often have the discretion to decide "arrest or not arrest.". In my county we only need Prosecutor Permission for Attempted Murder charges because the line between Aggravated Assault and Attempt Murder can be blurry. In the US at least such case law not only governs how a Judge or Jury must rule but also governs whether or not an arrest is made.

My main point, based on reading British Case Law, is that you need to say more than just "they were acting aggressively, were in my personal space and had their hand in their pocket". More than one case says you need to define aggressive. We're they actively threatening you or just cursing you. Did they actually imply they may have a weapon by saying things like "do you want some of this?" Or "I'll cut you" Immediately after putting their hand in their pocket? So I am not saying the state of mind of the person using self defense is incorrect, only that the person has to forth actual facts to justify the state of mind. Now we have to remember that the standard of reasonableness is (simplified) "a person of like training and experience under similar circumstances." Again my point is to say simply saying "aggressively" doesn't cut it.

There is more to it of course but you need to be able to justify the feeling you had that triggered your action with facts. I am sure more than once an Inspector in Britain as said what I have "sorry, not saying right or wrong but this is what the Law and the Courts say."

As for the Privy Council I think their rulings are relevant to an extent. They are a Body, established under the Monarch's name, and their Judicial Committee Acts as the High Court for what remains of the Empire (besides Britain itself) as well as Crown Dependency's, over seas territories and some Commonwealth States. Since the body is made up of not only Commonwealth Judges but also Justices of the Supreme Court of Great Britain I think it safe to say their rulings would be consistent with a ruling over a similar casethat occurred in say Liverpool.

 

[Tez3]

Inspector in Britain as said what I have "sorry, not saying right or wrong but this is what the Law and the Courts say."

Good lord, constables can say that lol.

wouldn't want to depend upon someone looking at a situation where I blasted a guy in the face for talking smack and having a hand in his pocket and deciding that was reasonable

To be honest, I wouldn't like to actually give an opinion on it because there's no facts to go on really. As I said before that's going to depend quite a bit on who you hit, where you were, if it were someone known to cause trouble, had a record and the cctv and/or witness agreed with your version and you were the local vicar, no problem. There's too many variables to just say well no that's wrong or right.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To be honest, I wouldn't like to actually give an opinion on it because there's no facts to go on really. As I said before that's going to depend quite a bit on who you hit, where you were, if it were someone known to cause trouble, had a record and the cctv and/or witness agreed with your version and you were the local vicar, no problem. There's too many variables to just say well no that's wrong or right.

That was my point about "context". If Gnarlie is picturing a different context than mine, then he likely is picturing some elements that would make it more justifiable. The picture I get in my head from his description woulnd't likely pass the test of reasonability, but that's probably more a matter of my interpretation of his description.

 

[Juany118]

That was my point about "context". If Gnarlie is picturing a different context than mine, then he likely is picturing some elements that would make it more justifiable. The picture I get in my head from his description woulnd't likely pass the test of reasonability, but that's probably more a matter of my interpretation of his description.

This is my point. With how vague his picture is I see a guy I spoke to a few years ago. He was on his porch behind the railing, a guy about 15 feet away on the sidewalk was arguing with him about parking in front of his house. The other guy said "I should kick your ***" and the gentleman I spoke to said "next time I can shoot him right?" He was completely serious. The area is a high crime area and there are more than a few assaults and robberies that happen in the neighborhood. This guy was from the suburbs and got suckered into buy new construction not knowing the nature of the neighborhood so he was basically living in fear. However that fear sure as heck didn't justify lethal force under the circumstances he related and he was actually pissed and arguing with me to the point I cleared the call saying "fine sir, shoot the guy, then we will arrest you and send you to prison while the other guys family sues you for wrongful death and takes the roof off your wife's head."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is my point. With how vague his picture is I see a guy I spoke to a few years ago. He was on his porch behind the railing, a guy about 15 feet away on the sidewalk was arguing with him about parking in front of his house. The other guy said "I should kick your ***" and the gentleman I spoke to said "next time I can shoot him right?" He was completely serious. The area is a high crime area and there are more than a few assaults and robberies that happen in the neighborhood. This guy was from the suburbs and got suckered into buy new construction not knowing the nature of the neighborhood so he was basically living in fear. However that fear sure as heck didn't justify lethal force under the circumstances he related and he was actually pissed and arguing with me to the point I cleared the call saying "fine sir, shoot the guy, then we will arrest you and send you to prison while the other guys family sues you for wrongful death and takes the roof off your wife's head."

This. And, of course, if you adjust a few of the variables, it can easily become justifiable. Perhaps the other guy threatens violence beyond "kick your ***", claims he has a gun, and suddenly reaches where one might be. Or if the guy has a stick in his hand and starts running across that 15' distance with it brandished like a bat. Now we're heading into different territory.

 

[Juany118]

This. And, of course, if you adjust a few of the variables, it can easily become justifiable. Perhaps the other guy threatens violence beyond "kick your ***", claims he has a gun, and suddenly reaches where one might be. Or if the guy has a stick in his hand and starts running across that 15' distance with it brandished like a bat. Now we're heading into different territory.

Exactly. The problem is a simple adjective like "aggressive" is not only vague but subjective. You need facts to explain and justify the adjectives used to explain your state of mind.

 

[Paul_D]

Yes, but you have to take something else into account with that and I should have mentioned it. If you read it all that is referring to being in your own home. Due to that fact you have greater self defense rights than "on the street" due to the Common Law theory commonly called the Castle Doctrine. That doctrine gives you WIDE latitude to engage in self defense. This doctrine does NOT apply on the streets however or even just outside your home as illustrated inhttp://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Beckford-v-The-Queen.php. Where the court ruled...

The defendant argued it was a mistake, the court ruled that did not rise to the level of reasonableness.

From Palmer v R

British case after British case talking about "reasonable" and "But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances" etc.

Based on all of the British case law I would strongly suggest people remember under British Law Self Defense is a Justification. Ergo you must prove it and to prove it it must be reasonable based on articulable fact and circumstances particular to your case.

Now this may make people say "well them defending myself is a crap shoot why take the risk?". To quote from another web site the reason for this is...Ergo you must prove it and to prove it it must be reasonable based on articulable fact and circumstances particular to your case.

You realise Beckford vs the Queen took place in Jamaica (which has been independent since 1962) not Britain?

Reasonable refers to the level of force, you are mistaking this as when and when it is not "reasonable" to take action to defend yourself. Beckford vs the Queen was not about whether or not it was reasonable to take action, it was about the level of force because lethal force was used, and therefore declared unreasonable as the office shot and unarmed suspect.

You are therefore trying to argue it is not reasonable to defend yourself against someone who is shouting at you and in your personal space and concealing a hand and clearly aggressive and threatening, by quoting a case where a police officer shot and killed an unarmed man (and also using “reasonable” in the wrong context, and also ignoring the fact this did not even take place in a British court).

If they are in your personal space, threatening, abusive and concealing their hand; what more information do you need to know you need to protect yourself, a written statement of intent form the aggressor?

This is why we have this:-
There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).

Further

Ergo you must prove it and to prove it it must be reasonable based on articulable fact and circumstances particular to your case.

You could not be more wrong if you tried. It is not your job to prove anything as you are innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the prosecution to prove that you did not act in self defence. In order to do this they have to present evidence which demonstartes you were not acting in self defence. Unless the CPS are confident they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate this in court they will not prosecute as there is little chance of a conviction.

I am sure you have a good grasp of US law, but it is clear you do not adequately understand our SD law, let alone enough to be advising us of what we can and cannot do.

 

[Tez3]

You could not be more wrong if you tried. It is not your job to prove anything as you are innocent until proven guilty. It is the job of the prosecution to prove that you did not act in self defence. In order to do this they have to present evidence which demonstartes you were not acting in self defence. Unless the CPS are confident they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate this in court they will not prosecute as there is little chance of a conviction.

This is absolutely correct, it says this in the links I've provided, you are always innocent until you are proven guilty and it's the CPS job to find that proof.

 

[Gnarlie]

In my experience the British police have totally supported me when I have needed to defend myself. I have never been arrested, and never been prosecuted. I gave had to defend myself on numerous occasions.

The police typically take a very pragmatic approach, rather than throwing the book at someone with good intent.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

That first sentence is where you may have problems. There are MANY reasons why a person might have a hand in their pocket. You've used the word "conceal", which already draws a conclusion not in evidence (that they are hiding the hand). Here are a few reasons a person might have their hand in their pocket, besides having a weapon in it:

• Arm injury (I actually did this a lot when I had my shoulder injury)
• Disfigured hand (being self-conscious)
• They were about to pay (wallet or money in that pocket) and simply didn't take the hand out
• Phone in that pocket (they think they need to call the cops on you)

I could think of others.

I have disarmed a pair of smokes and a phone before that someone had decided to pull out in the middle of a confrontation.

Anecdotally.

 

[drop bear]

In my experience the British police have totally supported me when I have needed to defend myself. I have never been arrested, and never been prosecuted. I gave had to defend myself on numerous occasions.

The police typically take a very pragmatic approach, rather than throwing the book at someone with good intent.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

It is a bit akward though because it is still a roll of the dice.

I have had pretty much the same exept for one mate who did two years. Which is a phenomenal amount of time for a self defence.

 

[Tez3]

It is a bit akward though because it is still a roll of the dice.

.

Not really because there's plenty of official guidance issued on how to deal with self defence situations. it's in the courts and the people's interest that cases don't go to court unless absolutely necessary for a number of reasons.

 

[Juany118]

This is absolutely correct, it says this in the links I've provided, you are always innocent until you are proven guilty and it's the CPS job to find that proof.

Sorry just did some digging the new Act the Tory's got passed in 2008 changed that. Prior to that, self defense was, as it is in most US States, an Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short if you are arrested for say murder the defendant had the burden to present evidence that the murder was justified based on the circumstances. Now some States have changed it (Missouri and Florida come to mind) so the Prosecution must prove that as well however there have been some high profile cases where there are now movements to go back to the old way. Trayvon Martin comes to mind. When the only witnesses to the incident are the suspect and the corpse it's impossible to prove it wasn't self defense.

So wrong in the UK now, yep. Wrong in the US, nope.

 

[drop bear]

Not really because there's plenty of official guidance issued on how to deal with self defence situations. it's in the courts and the people's interest that cases don't go to court unless absolutely necessary for a number of reasons.

So there is no chance it can all go pear shaped?

 

[Tez3]

So there is no chance it can all go pear shaped?

It would be very unlikely for one simple reason, if the evidence looks as if it won't stand in court, it's flimsy or circumstantial the CPS won't prosecute for the prosaic reason that it will waste public money. Probably not the best reason but it's true all the same. In other cases not self defence related it's caused a lot or grief for victims who have seen the accused get off with a crime. The CPS wants a water tight case they know they will win, they won't justify spending money on cases that they 'might' win. Morally it's difficult to agree with on purely financial grounds but it is what it is.