Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 (CA), Lord Diplock said:

'There is however, no rule of law that a person attacked is bound to run away if he can, but it has been said that ... "what is necessary is that he [...]. He must demonstrate that he is prepared to temporise and disengage and perhaps to make some physical withdrawal." It is submitted that it goes too far to say that action of this kind is necessary. A demonstration by the accused that at the time he did not want to fight is, no doubt, the best evidence that he was acting reasonably and in good faith in self defence; but it is no more than that. A person may in some circumstances so act without temporising, disengaging or withdrawing; and he should have a good defence.'

Answer
should demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight

Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 (CA), Lord Diplock said:

'There is however, no rule of law that a person attacked is bound to run away if he can, but it has been said that ... "what is necessary is that he [...]. He must demonstrate that he is prepared to temporise and disengage and perhaps to make some physical withdrawal." It is submitted that it goes too far to say that action of this kind is necessary. A demonstration by the accused that at the time he did not want to fight is, no doubt, the best evidence that he was acting reasonably and in good faith in self defence; but it is no more than that. A person may in some circumstances so act without temporising, disengaging or withdrawing; and he should have a good defence.'

Answer
?

Tags
#crime #defences #law
Question
R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 (CA), Lord Diplock said:

'There is however, no rule of law that a person attacked is bound to run away if he can, but it has been said that ... "what is necessary is that he [...]. He must demonstrate that he is prepared to temporise and disengage and perhaps to make some physical withdrawal." It is submitted that it goes too far to say that action of this kind is necessary. A demonstration by the accused that at the time he did not want to fight is, no doubt, the best evidence that he was acting reasonably and in good faith in self defence; but it is no more than that. A person may in some circumstances so act without temporising, disengaging or withdrawing; and he should have a good defence.'

Answer
should demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
<head>R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 (CA), Lord Diplock said: 'There is however, no rule of law that a person attacked is bound to run away if he can, but it has been said that ... "what is necessary is that he should demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight. He must demonstrate that he is prepared to temporise and disengage and perhaps to make some physical withdrawal." It is submitted that it goes too far to say that action of this k

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised 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.