From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WHY SELF-DEFENCE IS NO SIMPLE DEFENCE 261623 APR 00 By Danny Kemp, PA News The law on self-defence looks simple enough on paper - a person may use "reasonable force" to protect themselves from attack. But it is so wide open to interpretation that using it as a defence can either lead to freedom or to life behind bars. The Law Society, the professional organisation for lawyers in the UK, said the principle was set in the Criminal Law Act 1967 and defined by previous cases. A spokeswoman said the classic pronouncement on the law relating to self-defence was given by Lord Morris in judgment on a 1971 case. It states: "If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken." Legal expert Professor Tony Smith of Cambridge University compared the cases of farmer Tony Martin, jailed for murdering a burglar with a shotgun, and M25 killer Kenneth Noye, who walked free from court in 1985 after stabbing a policeman to death. "People might ask why one has gone free when the other has not, but it is all down to the application of the law to the facts by a particular jury," said Prof Smith. "If the jurors thought Noye had genuinely believed his life was at risk, that is enough to demonstrate reasonable force. "Conversely with Tony Martin, they had to consider whether he was aware the burglars didn't have weapons, or how dark it really was, for example." Prof Smith said the law had evolved since the 1960s when self-defence would be more closely defined by legal "rules", such as that the person must have initially withdrawn from an attack rather than staying and fighting. Now those old rules would merely be taken into account as part of the jury's overall decision on whether "reasonable force" had been used. The European Convention on Human Rights had also made the issue more complex for UK law as it specifically enshrines the right to life. "That includes everybody, even aggressors, and we were found in breach of the convention a few years ago, with the Death on the Rock case (when alleged IRA operatives were shot in Gibraltar)," he said. A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said: "Every case is different and what amounts to reasonable force in one case might not be reasonable in another. "It is our duty to present evidence in cases, the defence can choose to plead self-defence, and it is the jury's duty to reach a verdict having considered all the factors." But Professor Smith said the UK needed a written code of law to eliminate some of the present ambiguities. "It is inappropriate to try and reform the law by the piecemeal, knee-jerk reaction being advocated by politicians. The Law Commission have been advocating a written code for the past 15 or 20 years." Kenneth Pantling Whatever happens they have got The Maxim Gun, and we have not. -------[Cybershooters contacts]-------- Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
