- Page 1 and 2: CONSULTATION PAPER LEGITIMATE DEFEN
- Page 3 and 4: LAW REFORM COMMISSION Background Th
- Page 5: Contact Details Further information
- Page 8 and 9: (6) Warnings and Less-Than-Lethal-F
- Page 10 and 11: (1) Introduction 311 (2) Models for
- Page 13 and 14: TABLE OF CASES Alberty v United Sta
- Page 15 and 16: R v Browne [1973] NI 96 Eng R v Cha
- Page 17: State v Gordon (1924) 128 SC 422 US
- Page 20 and 21: 4. As noted in the Report of the Ex
- Page 22 and 23: their submissions in writing by pos
- Page 24 and 25: easonableness test which has develo
- Page 28 and 29: 1.19 Interestingly, this issue does
- Page 30 and 31: argument is that it is impossible t
- Page 32 and 33: to lethal defensive force to repel
- Page 34 and 35: promulgated Draft Criminal Code for
- Page 36 and 37: defensive force had been permitted
- Page 38 and 39: “wrongful confinement” preventi
- Page 40 and 41: justifiable for the sake of prevent
- Page 42 and 43: misunderstand the nature of affrays
- Page 44 and 45: jurisdictions there is support for
- Page 46 and 47: 2.64 This section is divided into t
- Page 48 and 49: defendant and adjacent to his home.
- Page 50 and 51: 2.75 It is often argued that the de
- Page 52 and 53: and entering of a dwellinghouse”.
- Page 54 and 55: legitimate defence is the vindicati
- Page 56 and 57: of a suspect (rather than to overco
- Page 58 and 59: (a) History 2.104 Historically, the
- Page 60 and 61: • The “specified-crimes” rule
- Page 62 and 63: proportion between the degree of fo
- Page 64 and 65: “A person may use such force as i
- Page 66 and 67: 2.133 In the third case of R v Thai
- Page 68 and 69: interpreted the test of “absolute
- Page 70 and 71: (d) Australia 2.148 In Australia th
- Page 72 and 73: him would have been unduly dangerou
- Page 74 and 75: 2.164 Unfortunately, there was no c
- Page 76 and 77:
(b) The Violent-Crimes Rule 2.171 A
- Page 78 and 79:
crime for which the arrestee is sou
- Page 80 and 81:
2.189 In the 1985 decision of Tenne
- Page 82 and 83:
serious offence, are typically perc
- Page 84 and 85:
significance of an escape is very d
- Page 86 and 87:
(9) Requirement of Warnings or Less
- Page 88 and 89:
particularly important that law enf
- Page 90 and 91:
the latter approach is adopted, the
- Page 92 and 93:
equally logical to authorize the us
- Page 94 and 95:
some of the leading cases in these
- Page 96 and 97:
2.253 None of the authorities cited
- Page 98 and 99:
Court to clarify its position. 355
- Page 100 and 101:
alternative defences of self-defenc
- Page 102 and 103:
Ireland Court of Appeal cited, with
- Page 104 and 105:
2.280 In a few instances the specif
- Page 106 and 107:
2.288 It can be seen from these exa
- Page 108 and 109:
force may be resorted to. While thi
- Page 110 and 111:
in preventing a crime. In the latte
- Page 112 and 113:
any precision. Although the term
- Page 114 and 115:
necessity principle “merely becau
- Page 116 and 117:
3.22 In contrast, the Court of Crim
- Page 118 and 119:
3.30 Lord Diplock indicated that an
- Page 120 and 121:
law has become increasing murky in
- Page 122 and 123:
of which is to explain and to provi
- Page 124 and 125:
inconsistent results. This has prom
- Page 126 and 127:
3.60 Whilst the Court indicated tha
- Page 128 and 129:
the violence continued. During the
- Page 130 and 131:
killed him. The trial judge refused
- Page 132 and 133:
involving confrontational killings
- Page 134 and 135:
(2) Broader Definition of ‘Immine
- Page 136 and 137:
3.97 However, this approach may be
- Page 138 and 139:
have also expressed doubts as to wh
- Page 140 and 141:
integrity of the rule and open it t
- Page 143 and 144:
4 CHAPTER 4 THE UNLAWFULLNESS RULE
- Page 145 and 146:
arrests. This illustration will ser
- Page 147 and 148:
(iv) The Garda does not meet the te
- Page 149 and 150:
(a) The Non Fatal Offences Against
- Page 151 and 152:
(c) Attorney-General v White 4.30 I
- Page 153 and 154:
“The English courts thus arrived
- Page 155 and 156:
in the proposal in 1962 by the draf
- Page 157 and 158:
4.50 Nevertheless, as Roch LJ state
- Page 159 and 160:
force was being used. The Court rej
- Page 161 and 162:
fide mistake of law on behalf of th
- Page 163 and 164:
4.72 Furthermore, it may be argued
- Page 165 and 166:
physical resistance can no longer b
- Page 167 and 168:
with a crime, even though the indiv
- Page 169 and 170:
all. This is because there are very
- Page 171 and 172:
lead to anarchy 120 and in effect e
- Page 173 and 174:
4.111 A defender who takes the life
- Page 175 and 176:
The insane attacker is not criminal
- Page 177 and 178:
Law Commission’s recommendations
- Page 179 and 180:
attacking [the third party], interv
- Page 181 and 182:
(5) Options for Reform 4.139 Given
- Page 183 and 184:
4.146 Although this would have “t
- Page 185 and 186:
4.153 Notwithstanding Ormiston J’
- Page 187 and 188:
4.160 This approach does not underm
- Page 189 and 190:
She notes that the there are many o
- Page 191 and 192:
5 CHAPTER 5 THE NECESSITY REQUIREME
- Page 193 and 194:
“[A] defender was not expected to
- Page 195 and 196:
These writers included Sir Michael
- Page 197 and 198:
adopting the stand-fast approach as
- Page 199 and 200:
of the state was the antithesis of
- Page 201 and 202:
5.39 Despite the widespread adoptio
- Page 203 and 204:
5.46 The Tasmanian Criminal Code go
- Page 205 and 206:
ut to ward off an attack honestly a
- Page 207 and 208:
instead armed himself with a gun an
- Page 209 and 210:
5.66 However, this view is not supp
- Page 211 and 212:
D The Castle Doctrine 5.75 The cast
- Page 213 and 214:
permissible to repel only those int
- Page 215 and 216:
(c) Does the doctrine apply to the
- Page 217 and 218:
5.97 A more problematic case is arg
- Page 219 and 220:
(c) Does the doctrine apply to the
- Page 221 and 222:
5.110 Interestingly, this is not a
- Page 223 and 224:
This doctrine is strongly linked to
- Page 225 and 226:
that the home constitutes a place o
- Page 227 and 228:
5.136 In order to examine the histo
- Page 229 and 230:
“[T]he conduct of the accused, re
- Page 231 and 232:
estricted to cases of deadly origin
- Page 233 and 234:
when an individual has sight of his
- Page 235 and 236:
wall, has found support among a num
- Page 237 and 238:
defend himself against an unlawful
- Page 239 and 240:
(b) Scots Law 5.178 Although not go
- Page 241 and 242:
5.187 The case of Burns v HM Advoca
- Page 243 and 244:
subject of aggression by his victim
- Page 245 and 246:
5.204 The Commission accepts that t
- Page 247 and 248:
5.214 This reasonableness approach
- Page 249 and 250:
6 CHAPTER 6 THE PROPORTIONALITY RUL
- Page 251 and 252:
might take into account that the bu
- Page 253 and 254:
need for proportionality when letha
- Page 255 and 256:
that the “modern authorities leav
- Page 257 and 258:
6.26 Furthermore, the Board opined
- Page 259 and 260:
(for example, where it would cause
- Page 261 and 262:
force were both necessary and reaso
- Page 263 and 264:
6.43 The “gross disproportionalit
- Page 265 and 266:
6.52 However, in Ireland, if the Co
- Page 267 and 268:
application in extreme cases, and t
- Page 269 and 270:
shot the deceased on account of an
- Page 271 and 272:
assessment of proportionality as it
- Page 273 and 274:
7 CHAPTER 7 MISTAKE A Introduction
- Page 275 and 276:
ased approach focuses on the defend
- Page 277 and 278:
objective debate. 9 By creating a n
- Page 279 and 280:
with motives, the “right thing to
- Page 281 and 282:
7.33 One explanation for this appar
- Page 283 and 284:
will kill does not intend that cons
- Page 285 and 286:
to the protection of their concrete
- Page 287 and 288:
7.59 However, the abandonment of th
- Page 289 and 290:
that putative defenders are not jus
- Page 291 and 292:
misinterpreted as a case of true ju
- Page 293 and 294:
inexcusable. 93 On the other hand,
- Page 295 and 296:
(4) A Partial Defence 7.88 If putat
- Page 297 and 298:
context of legitimate defence, has
- Page 299 and 300:
7.104 At the same time, any concern
- Page 301 and 302:
7.112 Bearing in mind the defining
- Page 303 and 304:
Williams (Gladstone) 145 the Englis
- Page 305 and 306:
7.125 Consider the normative standa
- Page 307 and 308:
safety than the average person. It
- Page 309 and 310:
these cases supported a Plea of Exc
- Page 311 and 312:
view that the degree of force used
- Page 313 and 314:
point was one of fact; reference is
- Page 315 and 316:
asis that the former is a category
- Page 317 and 318:
7.164 Interestingly, a similar appr
- Page 319 and 320:
7.173 It appears that the principal
- Page 321 and 322:
7.180 Firstly, an excessive defende
- Page 323 and 324:
y the Canadian Supreme Court in the
- Page 325 and 326:
“[W]here self-defence fails as a
- Page 327 and 328:
manslaughter rather than murder tho
- Page 329 and 330:
7.210 The potential role of this br
- Page 331 and 332:
(c) A Dual Model 7.223 The final mo
- Page 333 and 334:
7.236 Anyway, if the law was true t
- Page 335 and 336:
standards of conduct but it makes a
- Page 337 and 338:
whole. 322 In addition to this, suc
- Page 339 and 340:
underrepresented on juries. It is a
- Page 341 and 342:
defenders should be entitled to an
- Page 343 and 344:
grossly negligent or had engaged in
- Page 345 and 346:
(although the unknowingly justfied
- Page 347 and 348:
Dadson principle should be adopted
- Page 349 and 350:
8 CHAPTER 8 PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDAT
- Page 351:
8.18 The Commission provisionally r