Crime CXXII – Self Defense XII
If
the defendant suffered from an abnormality of the mind, and reacted to a
situation in the way and manner a normal person would not have or had used
excessive force in defending himself or his property, keeping in mind that the
defendant’s actions when acting in self-defense is normally instinctive, and
all that the defendant needs to establish is that he or she felt that at the
time his or her actions were honestly and instinctively necessary to defend
himself or herself, the defense of self-defense may not avail itself to the
victim, if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant
was not acting in self-defense.
In
R v Martin (2002) the defendant lived by himself in an isolated farmhouse which
for all purposes looked rundown and to some extent dilapidated and had in the
past been subjected to numerous break-ins. On the night in question the victim
and his friend tried to break into the farmhouse and the defendant went
downstairs armed with a shotgun and shot at both the intruders hitting the
victim in the back and thereby killing him. At his trial the defendant raised
the defense of self-defense. The jury rejected the defense and convicted the
defendant for murder. The defendant appealed on the grounds that he suffered
from a personality disorder and that should have been taken into account.
On
appeal the conviction for murder was quashed. While a personality disorder will
not be considered for the purposes of self-defense, the jury ought to have
taken into account psychiatric reports that suggested that the defendant
suffered from an abnormality of the mind.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment