From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The argument would be that the police have actually obstructed the
exercise of a common law right, so a person could not be criminally
liable because the police themselves have acted criminally. Can't
remember the legal theory there but it's something in
From: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David,
It was my posting on R v Fagan which appeared recently. On checking the
judgement, I see that it is not dated and the name is spelled Fegan.
I thought it was a 1986 case but on checking the A-G's Reference (1994) 1
All ER, it is shown as R V
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He is not confined for his remedy to calling the police or boarding up his
premises. He may still arm himself for his own protection, if the exigency
arises, although in so doing he may commit other offences. That he may be
guilty of other offences will
