Smith, Hogan, & Ormerod's Criminal Law

Product Information

Numerous questions, with selected answer guidance online, are posed across the text both to aid reflection and encourage further investigation

It can rarely, if ever, be reasonable to use deadly force for the protection of property. Would it have been reasonable to kill even one of the Great Train Robbers to prevent them from getting away with their millions of pounds of loot, or to kill a man about to destroy a priceless old master? – even assuming that no means short of killing could prevent the commission of the crime (Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law, 1996, p266).

6. INTOXICATION AND SELF-DEFENCE

Note: today it would seem difficult to contend that such conduct would be reasonable because legal redress would be available if the householder were wrongly evicted. Insofar as the householder is preventing crime, his conduct would be regulated by s3 Criminal Law Act 1967 which replaces the rules of common law.

New flow charts to aid comprehension of some of the more difficult topics covered in the book, such as consent, duress, and self-defence It is therefore, a matter for the jury to decide as to whether the defendant acted reasonably in standing his ground to defend himself, or whether the reasonable man would have taken the opportunity to run away. 3. IMMINENCE OF THE

The general principle is that the law allows only reasonable force to be used in the circumstances and, what is reasonable is to be judged in the light of the circumstances as the accused believed them to be (whether reasonably or not). In assessing whether a defendant had used only reasonable force, Lord Morris in Palmer v R [1971] AC 814, felt that a jury should be directed to look at the particular facts and circumstances of the case. His Lordship made the following points: Clear introductory text and supporting commentary helps the reader to contextualize extract materials and to apply the law with confidence the jury should be directed first of all that the prosecution have the burden or duty of proving the unlawfulness of the defendant’s actions; secondly, if the defendant may have been labouring under a mistake as to the facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken view of the facts; thirdly, that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view, a reasonable mistake or not. Even if the jury came to the conclusion that the mistake was an unreasonable one, if the defendant may genuinely have been labouring under it, he is entitled to rely upon it. This new edition has been significantly revised to focus wholly on the coverage needed by undergraduate readers

Note that in R v Owino [1995] Crim LR 743, the Court of Appeal firmly denied that Scarlett is to be interpreted as permitting a subjective test in examining whether force used in self-defence is reasonably proportionate. The true rule is that a person may use such force as is (objectively) reasonable in the circumstances as he (subjectively) believes them to be. 2. A DUTY TO RETREAT? A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence. R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816 – The defendant had been slapped and pushed by a man. She was holding a glass in her hand at the time and she had hit out at the man in self-defence without realising that she still held the glass. The trial judge directed the jury that self-defence was only available as a defence if the defendant had first shown an unwillingness to fight. The Court of Appeal quashed the defendant’s conviction saying that it was unnecessary to show an unwillingness to fight and there were circumstances where a defendant might reasonably react immediately and without first retreating. It was up to a jury to decide on the facts of the case.Ormerod and Laird present a thorough yet accessible student guide to the criminal law, supported by a wealth of key extracts from judgments, statutes, reports, and academic articles. Both the common law and statutory defences can be raised in respect of any crime with which the defendant is charged, and if successful will result in the defendant being completely acquitted. However, if a defendant uses excessive force this indicates that he acted unreasonably in the circumstances. There will therefore be no valid defence, and the defendant will be liable for the crime. 1. REASONABLE FORCE If however the defendant’s alleged belief was mistaken and if the mistake was an unreasonable one, that may be a powerful reason for coming to the conclusion that the belief was not honestly held and should be rejected.

They ought not to convict him unless they are satisfied that the degree of force used was plainly more than was called for by the circumstances as he believed them to be and, provided he believed the circumstances called for the degree of force used, he was not to be convicted even if his belief was unreasonable.” A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.” The student reader will benefit from the combined expertise of Ormerod and Laird, while also gaining invaluable insights from leading judges and academic commentatorsThe issue of a mistake as to the amount of force necessary was considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Scarlett [1994] Crim LR 288: