[ case ]HELD: The Court of Appeal held that self-defence is not automatically precluded in a situation where the defendant was the initial aggressor and the victim retaliated. The success of the defence would depend upon the circumstances of the case. The court made it clear that self- defence is available to the person who started the fight if the person whom he attacks not only defends himself but goes over to the offensive. It would then be for the jury to decide whether or not the defendant honestly believed that it was necessary for him to use force to defend himself and whether the amount of force he used was reasonable.
Answer
R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377 (CA)
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
[ case ]HELD: The Court of Appeal held that self-defence is not automatically precluded in a situation where the defendant was the initial aggressor and the victim retaliated. The success of the defence would depend upon the circumstances of the case. The court made it clear that self- defence is available to the person who started the fight if the person whom he attacks not only defends himself but goes over to the offensive. It would then be for the jury to decide whether or not the defendant honestly believed that it was necessary for him to use force to defend himself and whether the amount of force he used was reasonable.
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
[ case ]HELD: The Court of Appeal held that self-defence is not automatically precluded in a situation where the defendant was the initial aggressor and the victim retaliated. The success of the defence would depend upon the circumstances of the case. The court made it clear that self- defence is available to the person who started the fight if the person whom he attacks not only defends himself but goes over to the offensive. It would then be for the jury to decide whether or not the defendant honestly believed that it was necessary for him to use force to defend himself and whether the amount of force he used was reasonable.
Answer
R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377 (CA)
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377 (CA) HELD: The Court of Appeal held that self-defence is not automatically precluded in a situation where the defendant was the initial aggressor and the victim retaliated. The success of the
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.