Discussion
OK there have been a few threads along the lines of people being banged up for killing intruders into their houses. Especially when the instrudesr were running away at the time.
MadCop (? Or was it someone else? Think I can be ar$ed to check? Sorry if I'm wrong) said in one that basically, if you think you are in danger you can use reasonable force in defence. If you genuinely believe (rightly or wrongly) you are about to be killed unless you take serious action, killing the attacker is a legally acceptable consequence of your action.
So ... Now I have to come out of the closet and admit that I watch Casualty (only sometimes ... the wife makes me ... honest
).
Anyway anyone else afflicted with the same problem will know that the not-unattractive Dr Stone (ah, now there's my excuse for watching ...
) has just been locked up for killing someone (mind you, a policeman) who she believed was going to rape and kill her.
The case hung on whether or not he really had previously assaulted his wife, giving Dr S reason to think that he would/could do the same, or whether she, thinking that he had cost her a promotion by complaining about her, set out to take revenge.
Surely, in the light of what MadCop (?, again) has said, what she may or may not have thought beforehand would be immaterial - if she genuinely believed (or so claimed) she was in danger at the time, and there were no witnesses to contradict her, and forensic evidence showed that her story was plausible, then there wouldn't be a case to answer? In which case (NEVER!) reality has been twisted to make a good (?) story)
I'm not planning to complain to the BBC about this, just to try to settle a squabble with my wife on the topic
.
Actually, out of self preservation I might just keep any conclusions to myself ...
MadCop (? Or was it someone else? Think I can be ar$ed to check? Sorry if I'm wrong) said in one that basically, if you think you are in danger you can use reasonable force in defence. If you genuinely believe (rightly or wrongly) you are about to be killed unless you take serious action, killing the attacker is a legally acceptable consequence of your action.
So ... Now I have to come out of the closet and admit that I watch Casualty (only sometimes ... the wife makes me ... honest
). Anyway anyone else afflicted with the same problem will know that the not-unattractive Dr Stone (ah, now there's my excuse for watching ...
) has just been locked up for killing someone (mind you, a policeman) who she believed was going to rape and kill her. The case hung on whether or not he really had previously assaulted his wife, giving Dr S reason to think that he would/could do the same, or whether she, thinking that he had cost her a promotion by complaining about her, set out to take revenge.
Surely, in the light of what MadCop (?, again) has said, what she may or may not have thought beforehand would be immaterial - if she genuinely believed (or so claimed) she was in danger at the time, and there were no witnesses to contradict her, and forensic evidence showed that her story was plausible, then there wouldn't be a case to answer? In which case (NEVER!) reality has been twisted to make a good (?) story)
I'm not planning to complain to the BBC about this, just to try to settle a squabble with my wife on the topic
. Actually, out of self preservation I might just keep any conclusions to myself ...
You are right. Section 3 Criminal Law act 1967 states that you can use reasonable force to prevent crime, effect arrest etc.
It deals purely with fact though so to use this as a defence means that the immediate belief should have been correct i.e. pointing a replica gun at someone who then retaliates because they think they are about to die from shooting. The fact they use force which is reasonable (death of the person with the gun) at that particular moment cannot be relied upon in court because the replica could not have killed in the first place.
I think Auntie has actually not got this right though because most Jurys would acquit anyone who had defended themselves in that sort of situation if they genuinely believed that they were about to become the victim of a serious arrestable offence and there was no alternative other than the death of the perpetrator to prevent the initial offence
It deals purely with fact though so to use this as a defence means that the immediate belief should have been correct i.e. pointing a replica gun at someone who then retaliates because they think they are about to die from shooting. The fact they use force which is reasonable (death of the person with the gun) at that particular moment cannot be relied upon in court because the replica could not have killed in the first place.
I think Auntie has actually not got this right though because most Jurys would acquit anyone who had defended themselves in that sort of situation if they genuinely believed that they were about to become the victim of a serious arrestable offence and there was no alternative other than the death of the perpetrator to prevent the initial offence
There has recently been a chage to this.
You can use reasonable and necessary force.
The word neccessary has been introduced.
But again its a law thats open to interpretation by the person at the time it all happens so what you think is reasonable and necessary force at the time might not be seen that way in court.
You can use reasonable and necessary force.
The word neccessary has been introduced.
But again its a law thats open to interpretation by the person at the time it all happens so what you think is reasonable and necessary force at the time might not be seen that way in court.
One of my friends has a shop in Scotland and on one quiet morning he witnessed another shop keeper being robbed directly across the street.
Being the karate expert he is he went over to the shop in mid robbery, floored the guy and held him until the police arrived.
The police arrived arrested the robber. Thats fine he though. Until he got a letter saying that the robber is trying to charge him with assault.
Court case to come. What a lot of bollocks. I wish that common sense would take over, sometimes, just sometimes.
Being the karate expert he is he went over to the shop in mid robbery, floored the guy and held him until the police arrived.
The police arrived arrested the robber. Thats fine he though. Until he got a letter saying that the robber is trying to charge him with assault.
Court case to come. What a lot of bollocks. I wish that common sense would take over, sometimes, just sometimes.
quote:
One of my friends has a shop in Scotland and on one quiet morning he witnessed another shop keeper being robbed directly across the street.
Being the karate expert he is he went over to the shop in mid robbery, floored the guy and held him until the police arrived.
The police arrived arrested the robber. Thats fine he though. Until he got a letter saying that the robber is trying to charge him with assault.
Court case to come. What a lot of bollocks. I wish that common sense would take over, sometimes, just sometimes.
Typical of the British Legal System
A couple of years ago I had something similar happen to me, got arrested, banged up overnight, charged, taken to court (several times) before a Magistrate in his infinate wisdom threw it out (awarded me my costs/expenses) and gave the Police Officers a minor Boolocking
A couple of months ago I caught a guy in my back garden at 11:30pm trying to nick the spare set of expensive alloys I have for one of the BMWs. I asked him what he was doing there and he gave me some bullsh*t excuse. I told him to leave my property and then he laughed at me, when I asked him again politely to leave he pulled a stanley knife on me. Without thinking I smacked him across the head with the handle of the garden spade, which was lying around. Having knocked him out I called the police, hoping they would arrest him and charge him...
Bolloc*s! The fuzz was quick to come around, calm me down and tell me that they couldnot charge him with anything, since he had not committed a crime! I guess I had to give that geezer the wheels, let him run down my street for half a mile and then that would be theft! Then the fuzz asked why he had blood across the face and I told them he knocked himself out trying to jump over the brick fence, which is 6'6" high. One of the cops just chuckled and warned me to be careful with these jumps
. I guess the fact that he had a stanley knife helped me...At the end the fuzz charged the guy with carrying a knife and attempt to cause GBH or something like that. The strange thing is that I did not hear from then afterwards...
Still speechless that I can nick something and as long as I don't do anything else stupid I know that I'll get away with it. Got to feel sorry for the fuzz in circumstances like this...
Bolloc*s! The fuzz was quick to come around, calm me down and tell me that they couldnot charge him with anything, since he had not committed a crime! I guess I had to give that geezer the wheels, let him run down my street for half a mile and then that would be theft! Then the fuzz asked why he had blood across the face and I told them he knocked himself out trying to jump over the brick fence, which is 6'6" high. One of the cops just chuckled and warned me to be careful with these jumps
. I guess the fact that he had a stanley knife helped me...At the end the fuzz charged the guy with carrying a knife and attempt to cause GBH or something like that. The strange thing is that I did not hear from then afterwards... Still speechless that I can nick something and as long as I don't do anything else stupid I know that I'll get away with it. Got to feel sorry for the fuzz in circumstances like this...
quote:
..... I called the police, hoping they would arrest him and charge him...
Still speechless that I can nick something and as long as I don't do anything else stupid I know that I'll get away with it. Got to feel sorry for the fuzz in circumstances like this...
They did charge him didn't they? You say he was charged with having a bladed instrument, or offensive weapon and assaulting you ( the threat of violence is the actual assault)
He may have been 'arrested' for attempted theft of your wheels but evidence and proof are required to charge him. That may have come from any statement that you gave in relation to where the wheels were left by you and where they were after you had challenged him i.e. had he moved them (was it really him that did so or someone else you hadn't seen earlier in the evening). Was he holding the wheels when you saw him.
Intent is a very important part of the theft act. If when interviewed, he does not admit or show any intent to steal the wheels ( much like the situation in a shop where the offender has to walk past the till area and out into the street to show the intent if they are stealing) then a charge of attempt theft will not succeed as there is not enough evidence.
The facts as they appear to me are that the Police did what they could within the law. There is an offence of being found on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose which they could have considered, but the knife charge was probably the one that would activate the harshest sentence.
There was no excuse though for not informing you of the result of the charges (court result) or was it relatively recent. I am to give evidence in December about an incident which happened nearly 18 months ago.
Don't get me wrong. I also think the police did what they could within the law. Furthermore, they turned a blind eye to the fact the guy's face was a bit messed up as a result of my attempt to beautify him with the spade But two things pi*s me off :
1. The police did not inform me of the progress or lack of it of the case. It was less than 6 months ago, so I take your point, but one phone call is enough, isn't it?
2. Is that the criminal in general has too many bloody rights and gets away with it most of time...
But two things pi*s me off : 1. The police did not inform me of the progress or lack of it of the case. It was less than 6 months ago, so I take your point, but one phone call is enough, isn't it?
2. Is that the criminal in general has too many bloody rights and gets away with it most of time...
Intent is a very important part of the theft act. If when interviewed, he does not admit or show any intent to steal the wheels ( much like the situation in a shop where the offender has to walk past the till area and out into the street to show the intent if they are stealing) then a charge of attempt theft will not succeed as there is not enough evidence.
Not quite. Reminds me of a colleague's story. Having been strung along by the prosecution in the previous case with a very dubious case, only to find the accused with a solicitor so inept he couldn't get his coat off a hanger, far less his client off a charge, the next case before him was someone charged at common law with entering a shop with intent to steal. My colleague thought like Madcop, how do you prove intent, he was still in the shop. Police started giving evidence when it transpired the accused had broken in through a skylight at 2 am, set off the silent alarm, and when the cops arrived he was dangling from the ceiling by a rope, all tooled up. No doubt but to go with the prosecution, and find intent.
quote:
Not quite. Reminds me of a colleague's story. Having been strung along by the prosecution in the previous case with a very dubious case, only to find the accused with a solicitor so inept he couldn't get his coat off a hanger, far less his client off a charge, the next case before him was someone charged at common law with entering a shop with intent to steal. My colleague thought like Madcop, how do you prove intent, he was still in the shop. Police started giving evidence when it transpired the accused had broken in through a skylight at 2 am, set off the silent alarm, and when the cops arrived he was dangling from the ceiling by a rope, all tooled up. No doubt but to go with the prosecution, and find intent.
Sorry to correct you Bob but that is clearly Burglary with intent Section 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968.
He entered with intent to steal when the building was shut so became a trespasser by doing so. All tooled up for theft or GBH would prove the intent to steal something or GBH someone. It would not actually prove his intentionof what he was actually going to steal like the wheels in the garden.
A common explanation might be, "I was chased by a couple of blokes and hid in here. I saw those wheels stacked up and decided to hide behind them" Complete b
x as you and I well know but how do you prove otherwise unless he admits going there to nick the wheels or is seen removing them to a place outside the garden area where they can be picked up by a vehicle. To find someone loitering in your garden does not mean that they had intent to steal anything unless they admit it or some other evidence of their state of mind was evident at the time from their actions.
That is why with theft (shoplifting) you have to wait until the offender leaves the payout area to show there was some intent to not pay for the goods. The only option available to them having done this would be to submit a defence that it was an accident such as they did not realise it was still in their pocket or bag
The definition of theft is broken down into its constituent parts and all of those have been subjected to legal definition themselves. Intent is one of those definitions. It comes under '...intention to permanently deprive the other of it' If you cannot prove that, then you cannot prove the offence of theft.
This is covered by Sect 6(1) which covers the intention to treat the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights.
I hope that clears it up a little.
quote:
Intent is one of those definitions. It comes under '...intention to permanently deprive the other of it' If you cannot prove that, then you cannot prove the offence of theft.
just out of interest, what if the perp could reasonably prove the item he had away, he had every intention of returning it. Would this then be theft?
Serious question.
quote:
just out of interest, what if the perp could reasonably prove the item he had away, he had every intention of returning it. Would this then be theft?
Serious question.
This is covered by Section 6 of the Act.
If you cannot prove intention to permanently deprive then there is no theft. However, if there is such an intention at the time of the appropriation, giving the property back later will not alter the fact and the charge will be made out.
Case law (R v McHugh (1993) 97 Cr App R 335)
The law is comprehensive on criminal intent alone. There is much legal definition about 'intent' in its own right.
The Theft Act is not only covered by the legal definition of 'intent' but also in relation to the specific phrase within the definition itself ' ...intention to permanently deprive.'
The full definition of Theft under section 1 Theft Act 1968 is short.
A person is guilty of Theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving him of it.
Definitions are applicable to each constituent of this offence.
1) What is dishonest?
2) What is appropriation?
3) What is property?
4) What is belonging to another?
5) What is intention to permanently deprive?
All these specific questions have to be relevant to the offenders actions and thoughts and ALL have to be present at the same time to prove the full offence of Theft.
mondeoman said: well, all I can say is that if I find some scrote walkin round my garden without me inviting him, then I'm gonna slap him first n ask questions after.
You will find yourself charge with assualt, battery or possible ABH/GBH dependant on the injuries you cause.
You may use reasonable force to remove someone from your property if/after you ask them to leave, as they will become trespassers, but you cannot kick the crap out of anyone in your garden. Reasonable force is of course VERY subjective, but take it to mean you must be as nice as possible..
One thing - I've found the police do generally follow up, but as madcop said, it can be some time.
I called the police about 3 years ago when I was outside a pub and this 17 yr old first attacked a smaller kid, then kicked in the side of a taxi and then legged it. I called 999, not expecting much.
5 mins later the B&T came hurtling down the road, just at that time the kid came back (
), so I casually went up to them and pointed out the little scrote.
Ended up going to the police station at 11:30pm to give a statement - got home about 2.
Anyway - despite saying I was OK about following up, never heard another thing until about 3 months ago. Turns out the scrote had skipped bail and never shown. They finally caught up with him.
Went to court, he saw 3 of us (there were 2 other witnesses) waiting outside and then pleaded guitly
. £150 fine plus costs I seem to remember.
So - it might take time - but it seems justice does take time - but in my case they did eventually catch up with the guy and contacted me then.
You could always ring the police station and follow it up yourself I suppose????
J
I called the police about 3 years ago when I was outside a pub and this 17 yr old first attacked a smaller kid, then kicked in the side of a taxi and then legged it. I called 999, not expecting much.
5 mins later the B&T came hurtling down the road, just at that time the kid came back (
), so I casually went up to them and pointed out the little scrote. Ended up going to the police station at 11:30pm to give a statement - got home about 2.
Anyway - despite saying I was OK about following up, never heard another thing until about 3 months ago. Turns out the scrote had skipped bail and never shown. They finally caught up with him.
Went to court, he saw 3 of us (there were 2 other witnesses) waiting outside and then pleaded guitly
. £150 fine plus costs I seem to remember. So - it might take time - but it seems justice does take time - but in my case they did eventually catch up with the guy and contacted me then.
You could always ring the police station and follow it up yourself I suppose????
J
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff