HELD: His appeal against conviction for assault was allowed. It was held that this direction was, in effect, removing from the jury's consideration the issue of whether or not F was attacked by W, in such a way as to entitle him to use reasonable force to defend himself. Whether or not F was a trespasser did not entitle W to use excessive force to remove him. F would be entitled to rely on self-defence if W used excessive force in attempting to remove him, if that was what W was trying to do.'... if F went in as a trespasser, though, how can he possibly say that he was being unlawfully attacked when W rushed at him, and if he was not unlawfully attacked when W rushed at him, how can there be any room for any suggestion that he was merely defending himself by any blow that he might have struck subsequently? Well, it is a matter for you. You have got to try this case according to the evidence.'
HELD: His appeal against conviction for assault was allowed. It was held that this direction was, in effect, removing from the jury's consideration the issue of whether or not F was attacked by W, in such a way as to entitle him to use reasonable force to defend himself. Whether or not F was a trespasser did not entitle W to use excessive force to remove him. F would be entitled to rely on self-defence if W used excessive force in attempting to remove him, if that was what W was trying to do.'... if F went in as a trespasser, though, how can he possibly say that he was being unlawfully attacked when W rushed at him, and if he was not unlawfully attacked when W rushed at him, how can there be any room for any suggestion that he was merely defending himself by any blow that he might have struck subsequently? Well, it is a matter for you. You have got to try this case according to the evidence.'
HELD: His appeal against conviction for assault was allowed. It was held that this direction was, in effect, removing from the jury's consideration the issue of whether or not F was attacked by W, in such a way as to entitle him to use reasonable force to defend himself. Whether or not F was a trespasser did not entitle W to use excessive force to remove him. F would be entitled to rely on self-defence if W used excessive force in attempting to remove him, if that was what W was trying to do.'... if F went in as a trespasser, though, how can he possibly say that he was being unlawfully attacked when W rushed at him, and if he was not unlawfully attacked when W rushed at him, how can there be any room for any suggestion that he was merely defending himself by any blow that he might have struck subsequently? Well, it is a matter for you. You have got to try this case according to the evidence.'
| 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 |