Criminal Law Problem Question Essay

Traditionally the self-defence law was the subject to heat debate between opponents and proponents of the law. On the one hand, the self-defence is essential to protect individuals from the violent acts from the part of offenders. On the other hand, the limits of self-defence are not always clear and there is still the room for error in cases involving self-defence issues. Nevertheless, the self-defence law and related cases are essential to maintain individuals’ right to self-defence and to protect them from the violent and offensive actions from the part of criminals. In this regard, it is possible to refer to the Chive, Garlic, Tarragon and Pepper case, which involved aggressive and violent behaviour and failure of victims to defend themselves effectively. At the same time, this case reveals the full extent to which the self-defence law is important to grant individuals with legal possibilities to defend themselves from offenders. In this regard, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the existing legislation and court rulings provide opportunities for self-defence but any case of self-defence needs accurate and in-depth investigation.
In actuality, the Chive, Garlic, Tarragon and Pepper case reveals numerous threats aggressive and violent people may expose average people to. To put it more precisely, the development of effective self-defence methods and tools, individuals should have the legal ground, whereas the inability of individuals to use the full potential of self-defence may expose them to serious threats and risks. In this regard, the Chive, Garlic, Tarragon and Pepper case is particularly noteworthy. On the other hand, this case reveals the fact that people often face the problem of the adequate response to violence not only because of the lack of legal opportunities and legal ground for self-defence but because of the lack of physical abilities and psychological preparedness to self-defence.
On analyzing the Chive, Garlic, Tarragon and Pepper case, it is important to dwell upon two episodes, which reveal situations, when self-defence could have been applied. First of all, it is necessary to focus on the actions of Chive, who committed the double murder. In this regard, it should be said that both victims of Chive could use their right to self-defence. For instance, Garlic could protect herself and use the ultimate force, if she was aware of the plan of Chive to kill her. She was unaware of the threat and could not exercise her right to self-defence. Instead, Chive used the defenceless of her weakness to protect herself.
However, the murder of Pig Wilson is, to a certain extent, controversial because, under certain circumstances, both Pig Wilson and Chive could use violence in self-defence. At this point, it is important to dwell upon details of the case. Pig Wilson enters the dressing room and witnesses the death of Garlic. Believing Chive to be out of control he swings a punch at her to knock her out but Chive ducks, grabs a glass bottle of Spicy Cola and brings it down on his head killing him instantly. At first glance, the situation seems to be obvious. Chive slaughtered Garlic and Pig Wilson was the next. His intention to knock Chive out was natural because he had to stop the murderer and to save his life. Instead, he failed to knock her out and was slaughtered by the murderer. Therefore, Pig Wilson had the right to self-defence. Chive murders Garlic and is ready to kill anyone, who stops her. In such a situation, Pig Wilson had to knock her out. Otherwise, he would expose his own life to the threat as Chive could not control herself and was ready to kill anyone. As the matter of fact, the actions of Chive proved that the first intention of Pig Wilson to stop Chive was right. As a result, Pig Wilson s should use the force to stop Chive because it was essential and reasonable self-defence.
However, the situation is not so obvious as it seems to be. What is meant here is the fact that Chive could have murdered Garlic spontaneously and she did not intend to kill her or any other person. Instead, Chive was not willing to make any other violent actions than Garlic. In such a situation, the aggression from the part of Pig Wilson could have provoked her to carry on her violent actions. What is meant here is the fact that Pig Wilson attempted to knock her out immediately, without observing her state and mood. For instance, Pig Wilson could have taken a few seconds to consider whether Chive was aggressive enough to carry on her violent act and what is more important the use of force by Pig Wilson could have been unreasonable because Chive could not expose the direct threat to him because she was not armed, whereas physically, he was stronger than Chive. Therefore, his actions could be qualified not as self-defence but as excessive use of force. In such a situation, Chive could be viewed as a potential victim and her actions could be qualified as self-defence. To put it more precisely, on committing the murder of Garlic, she could probably be shocked. At this moment, she saw Pig Wilson attempting to knock her out or probably murder. She faced a threat to her life and, naturally, she used force to stop Pig Wilson. Therefore, she used self-defence to stop Pig Wilson and probably to save her life. In such a context, the use of force by Chive was reasonable because Pig Wilson was stronger than her, he was aggressive and threatened to her life and health. Therefore, the self-defence from the part of Chive was reasonable.
However, at this point, it is necessary to take into consideration the context, in which the conflict between Pig Wilson and Chive had occurred. In this respect, the murder of Garlic my Chive was a strong argument in favour of aggressive actions from the part of Pig Wilson. On the other hand, the difference in physical force and the lack of any weapon in hands of Chive made the actions of Pig Wilson unreasonable because he could use less force to stop her. Moreover, Chive did not threaten to the life of Pig Wilson directly.
In this respect, it is possible to refer to the case of Tony Martin (2000), who shot dead two burglars, who broke into his home. His actions were justified by the right of an individual to protect him- or herself and his or her property from intruders. At this point, his actions were similar to that of Tony Martin. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that, similarly to Chive, the burglars were weaker than Tony Martin and they were without weapon.
During the trial it was decided that Martin suffered from a psychiatric disorder giving rise to a paranoid personality – A jury should take into account the specific characteristics of the individual. However, they should not make an allowance for this kind of psychiatric abnormality which can give a distorted idea of what is necessary and/or reasonable.
In addition, Tony Martin kept a stock of illegally held weapons at his home and had previously stated his belief in a householder’s right to use extreme methods to defend his property. The facts of the case suggested that, to some extent, Martin had been lying in wait for intruders. In such a way, he had the plan to the murder and he was ready to commit a murder. In this regard, he is different from Pig Wilson because he acted spontaneously. He did not have a plan to kill Chive. Instead, Chive’s actions were more similar to that of Tony Martin because she planned to kill Garlic and Pig Wilson became the occasional victim as the two burglars who intruded into Tony Martin’s house.
At this point, specialists argue that the intruder killed by Martin was sixteen years’ old and was shot in the back whilst 12 feet away. In such a context, the question arises: Was it really necessary to shoot him dead in self-defence?
At this point, it is possible to refer to the existing self-defence law, according to which, an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others. First, they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so. Second, the level of violence may include killing the assailant. Third, an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence. In such a context, the violent action from the part of Chive could be justified, if her actions were qualified as self-defence.
At the same time, it is worth mentioning the fact that the prosecution involving cases of self-defence are quite complicated. Before a case gets to court the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will have to decide whether it should go that far. In reaching this decision there are various factors that the CPS will take into account, including: whether there is likely to be enough evidence to secure a conviction; and, whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

Furthermore, if a person is prosecuted for self-defence, the Court poses the question: Was the force used by the individual reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believed them to be? The jury has to answer this question based on the facts as the individual saw them when he acted as he did. A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, members of their family or even a complete stranger if they genuinely believe that they are in danger or are the victim of an unlawful act, such as an assault.
At this point, the case of Pig Wilson and Chive raise the problem of the reasonability of using force by Pig Wilson because he could stop Chive without using extensive force and knocking her out. For instance, he could hold her tight to prevent from escape or any violent actions from his part. The self-defence law stresses that a person can use force if they believe that there is a threat of imminent violence if they do not act first.
At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that the law of self-defence can even excuse an assault, or a death, when the individual was wrong in their belief that they had to act in the way they did – when there was never any real danger. If the person genuinely believed they were acting in self-defence that can be enough. In this regard, Chive could pretend to act in self-defence because Pig Wilson used force to knock her out. She could have interpreted his actions as a threat to her life and she used the bottle to stop him but her actions led to the death of Pig Wilson, although she could not intend the murder of Pig Wilson. On the other hand, Pig Wilson could act in self defence as well because Chive had already slaughtered Garlic and he could be the next. However, in this regard, the position of Pig Wilson is inconsistent with requirements of the self-defence law because Chive could not kill him with her bare hands.
In this regard, it is possible to refer to requirements of the self-defence law, according to which to show self-defence one must: show that you reasonably fear immediate attack; show that you had no alternative avenue of escaping the attack. If you can, you must run away.The response must be proportionate to the threat. If someone threatens a person with a balloon, he or she may not respond with a knife. If one’s own life is not under threat one cannot threaten somebody else’s life. In this regard, the life of Pig Wilson was not under a threat. Therefore, his actions could not be interpreted as self-defence. As for Chive, the actions of Pig Wilson could threaten to her life because he was stronger than her and she did not know what he could do to her. Therefore, her actions could be qualified as self-defence. However, the murder she had committed just before the attack from the part of Pig Wilson put her position under a question because it is unclear whether she murdered Pig Wilson in self defence or probably she just murdered an eyewitness.
Along with such cases as the case of Tony Martin (2000), it is worth mentioning legal acts, such as Criminal Law Act of 1967 and Human Rights Act of 1998. According to the Criminal Law Act of 1967, its Section 3 reads as follows/
(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.
At the same time, the Human Rights Act of 1998 grants individuals with the right to self-defence. In fact, the Human Rights Act of 1998 enhances the Criminal Law Act provisions in regard to self-defence. The Human Rights Act of 1998 makes self-defence as one of basic human rights.
At the same time, the case of Chive, Garlic, Tarragon, and Pepper has another situation, when the concept of self-defence could be applied. To put it more precisely, the murder committed by Tarragon raises another issue of self-defence. Tarragon commits a murder of Pepper, when the quarrel between them outbursts and Tarragon strangles Pepper. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that Tarragon suffers from epilepsy and could not be fully responsible for the murder because she could not control herself. On the other hand, it is necessary to identify whether she was capable to assess adequately her actions and whether her mental state at the moment of the murder allowed her to make conscious actions and be responsible for the actions she has undertaken.
Tarragon strangles Pepper that is apparently a manslaughter. However, Pepper could take actions in self-defence but she has failed to take. What is meant here is the fact that Pepper provoked Tarragon for she mocked at her, although she was aware of her mental health problems. Provocative actions from the part of Pepper led to the aggression from the part of Tarragon. At the same time, actions of Tarragon could not be interpreted as self-defence because Pepper did not threaten to her life. In contrast, Pepper had the right to use the full-defence. In fact, her case is similar to the case of R v Lindsay (2005) AER (D) 349, where Lindsay used sword to defend himself from three mask intruders, who threatened him with the weapon. Tarragon uses microphone cord as the weapon to strangle Pepper. Therefore, Pepper could use any plausible mean to stop Tarragon and to save her life. However, she proved to be defenceless in face of the aggressive murdered.
In contrast, to the case of the murder of Garlic, the murder committed by Tarragon was not carefully planned. Instead, it was spontaneous and, what is more, provoked by the victim herself. At the same time, both defendants will have substantial difficulties to prove that their actions were manifestation of self-defence because they do not have the major factors and criteria that the self-defence should meet.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the concept of self-defence is quite complicated and, to a certain extent, controversial. The cases discussed above reveal the full extent to which it is difficult to define actions of individuals as the manifestation of self-defence. On the other hand, self-defence often involves violent actions, including the murder of offenders. This is why it is very difficult to investigate such cases and to prove the reasonability of actions of the defendant. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that the existing legislation provides citizens with the legal ground for the use of self-defence to protect their life, health, family, and property, if they are under a threat and when the use of force against offenders is reasonable. At this point, the existence of threat and the reasonableness of using force are crucial factors that grant people with the right to use force in terms of self-defence.