What I'm learning
(the old test for self-defence in Victoria under the common law)
(the old test for self-defence in Victoria under the common law)
Viro propositions:
1. It is for the jury to consider whether the accused killed the deceased and reasonably believed that an unlawful attack which threatened death or serious bodily harm
2. If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable belief by the accused of such an act no question of self defence arises
3. If the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no such reasonable belief by the accused it must then consider whether the force in fact used by the accused was reasonably proportionate to the danger which he believed he faced.
4 .If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no such reasonable belief by the accused, it must then consider whether the force in fact used by he accused was reasonably proportionate it should acquit
5. If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that more force was used, then its verdict should be either manslaughter of murder, that depending upon the answer to the question by the jury: did the accused believe that the force was used was reasonably proportionate to the danger he faces?
6. If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have such a belief the verdict will be murder. If it is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have that belief the verdict will be manslaughter.
1. It is for the jury to consider whether the accused killed the deceased and reasonably believed that an unlawful attack which threatened death or serious bodily harm
2. If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable belief by the accused of such an act no question of self defence arises
3. If the jury is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no such reasonable belief by the accused it must then consider whether the force in fact used by the accused was reasonably proportionate to the danger which he believed he faced.
4 .If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no such reasonable belief by the accused, it must then consider whether the force in fact used by he accused was reasonably proportionate it should acquit
5. If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that more force was used, then its verdict should be either manslaughter of murder, that depending upon the answer to the question by the jury: did the accused believe that the force was used was reasonably proportionate to the danger he faces?
6. If the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have such a belief the verdict will be murder. If it is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have that belief the verdict will be manslaughter.
But really what I'm thinking about is these.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to comment at your leisure to engage/enrage me.