Self-Defence in Law Cases

Self-Defence

• Imminent danger: Self-defence is permissible only when imminent danger exists, and there's no alternative.
• Perceived threat: The accused must genuinely perceive the threat as real.
• Reasonable force: Force used must be proportionate to the threat, not intended to cause death or serious harm.
• Justification for lethal force: A person can use lethal force only if they reasonably believe their life is in danger.
• R.v. Smith: Self-defence failed due to excessive force. The accused wasn't facing imminent danger anymore, and the force used far surpassed what was necessary.

R. v. Paice

• Manslaughter vs. Murder: Paice likely faced manslaughter charges as the act was likely not intentional. But intent to cause harm, knowing potentially fatal outcomes, may elevate the charge towards murder in such a case.

• Self-defence (Paice case): The defence of self-defence failed because the force used was excessive after the victim was already incapacitated.

Necessity

• Imminent Risk: The necessity defence applies only in cases of imminent risk.
• No Alternative: The crime must be committed due to immediate urgency, with no other viable options.
• R. v. Ungar: The defence of necessity was successful due to the urgency and life-threatening situation. The court recognized no legal alternative to the risky driving in such a critical situation. Police and Crown wrongly charged Ungar.

"Traffic Cop Holds Up Speeding Surgeon"

• Officer's Justification: The officer likely argued that stopping the speeding surgeon avoided a potential accident, which would result in extended problems for both parties.
• Alternative Approach: The officer could have used emergency lights and an escort, which would be a more effective approach.
• Likely Outcome: The ticket was likely withdrawn following the above discussion.

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

• Necessity Defence Rejected: The necessity defence failed. The court determined that the accused could not choose which life to save in a case like this. This was difficult because the value of a human life is hard to quantify.

• Measured Value: The accused's plan of which life to sacrifice was deemed inappropriate and morally unacceptable and that it's not a proper measure to determine which life to protect.

• Morality vs. Law: The law and morality are intertwined, although they are not synonymous.

• Brooks' Non-Prosecution: Brooks likely avoided charges as he disagreed with the killing and testified against the other accused, thus not benefiting from the killing.

Duress

• Essentials of Duress: Duress is valid when a person commits a crime as a direct result of credible threats of death or serious bodily harm, and that the offender is immediately present. Offenses like murder usually don't allow a duress defence.
• R. v. Keller: Duress failed because the threats were not imminent, and there was time for a safe escape or other alternatives.
• R. v. Ruzic: The defendant in this case challenged the requirement for the threatener to be present and the threat to be immediate.
• Common Law vs. Statutory Duress: Common law duress is broader than the statutory defence. Common law does not require the threatener to be physically present; the threat can be future-oriented or made against someone else.
• Ruzic's Facts: Ruzic could rely on facts like harm to herself and threats against her mother as arguments for common law duress.
• Keller vs Ruzic: Since Section 17 was struck in Ruzic, in future similar cases, the common law duress is the only applicable defense.

Explore the principles of self-defence in legal contexts through landmark cases like R. v. Smith and R. v. Paice. Understand the criteria for permissible self-defence, including imminent danger and reasonable force. This quiz examines the nuances of legal definitions surrounding self-defence, manslaughter, and murder.