Crime CXX – Self Defense X
When
the jury is convinced excessive force was used and the jury returns a verdict
of guilty of murder, should the verdict be substituted for a verdict of guilty
of manslaughter if the appellant was acting in self-defense?
In
R v Palmer (1971) the appellant and two others were chased by some men after
they’d stolen some drugs. During the chase the appellant fired some shots and
one of the men that was chasing them was killed by a gunshot. The appellant was
arrested and tried and according to the appellant he did not fire the shot. The
judge however directed the jury on self-defense and the jury returned a verdict
of guilty of murder. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the judge
having directed the jury on self-defense, the jury should have returned a
verdict of manslaughter.
The
appeal was dismissed. If a verdict of murder is returned, when the appellant
has pleaded self-defense there is no option to substitute a murder conviction
with that of manslaughter.
"If
there has been an attack so that defense is reasonably necessary it will be
recognized that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact
measure of his necessary defensive action. If a jury thought that in a moment
of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and
instinctively thought was necessary, that would be most potent evidence that
only reasonable defensive action had been taken." – Lord Morris.
There
are three salient points to be observed here: -
1. It
is up to the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant
was not acting in self-defense and if the prosecution has successfully done
that than the defense of self-defense will not avail itself to the
defendant/appellant.
2. Secondly
the court appreciates the fact that a person who is being attacked is not in a
position or not in the state of mind to weigh the defensive measures he or she
takes, and in most instances cannot control the amount of force that is exerted
while defending himself or herself.
3. If
the jury decided that at the heat of the moment, at the time of the attack,
that the defendant did what he or she thought was honestly and instinctively
necessary than that would be strong evidence to suggest that the defendant was
acting in self-defense.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment