I need to get a submission as a LEAD APPELLANT
In the first case, A (the acquitted person), had been acquitted of the murder of the deceased, Victor Mildew, by a jury.
The undisputed facts at trial were that A and Mildew had been next-door neighbours for some years. There were several gaps in the hedge between their two back gardens, and A’s children, aged 5 and 7, would often run through the gaps into Mildew’s garden. Despite Mildew shouting at the children and A telling his children not to do so, the children continued to run onto Mildew’s land. On the day of the events which were the subject of the charge, Mildew was in his back garden cutting the hedges using a hedge trimmer. A’s children were taunting Mildew and ran through a gap at the bottom of the garden. Mildew shouted over the hedge to A, “You stop those kids coming on my land right now or I’ll chop their legs off.”
At trial, A gave evidence as to what happened next;
“I honestly thought he meant it. He started to go down the garden towards the kids and the kids were screaming and yelling. So I forced myself through the hedge, grabbed the trimmer and swung it into his body. I just felt I had to save my kids.”
The post-mortem of Victor Mildew revealed he had died from blood loss caused by the severing of the main artery in his leg by the hedge trimmer. Death occurred within moments.
When asked at trial if he still thought he had done the right thing, A answered,
“On reflection, I think Mildew wouldn’t have hurt the kids. He was quite old and frail. May be it was just a flippant threat to make the kids listen and leave him alone, but when he said what he did, I really thought he meant it.”
The trial judge had directed the jury on the relevant element of self-defence that:
“The correct test to be applied is whether A honestly believed the facts which, if true, would have entitled him to use reasonable force to protect himself. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is relevant only in so far as it goes to support, or detract from, the honesty of his belief.”
Following the acquittal, the Attorney General, pursuant to section 36(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, referred for the opinion of the Court of Appeal the question whether English law conflicts with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of article 2 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal answered that it did. On further reference by the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, at the request of the acquitted person, and with the leave of the Supreme Court, the following point of law of general public importance has been certified [for lead counsel to present]:
Where a person has killed another in self-defence where the actor was honestly but unreasonably mistaken about the need to use force, whether English law needs to adopt a narrower approach in order to comply with article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights?
Thanking you in advance..
Criminal Law Moot Help (Self Defence) Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by Influenced; 01-04-2013 at 17:51.
- 01-04-2013 17:50
- 10-04-2013 16:00
i have this too, have you had any luck finding anything?
- Thread Starter
- 10-04-2013 19:06