|
The defense of property is a possible excuse used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for the loss and injury they have caused because they were acting to protect their property. Courts have generally ruled that the use of force may be acceptable, but that lethal force is generally not acceptable in defending property, although it may be acceptable in self-defense or, in some countries, the defense of one's home. As deadly force is not allowed, the setting of booby-traps and the use of dangerous guard dogs is also either not allowed or only allowed on strict terms such as the prominent display of warning notices. Image File history File links Gnome-globe. ...
Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
Actual innocence is the most widely used - yet often the least studied - defense to crime. ...
In jurisprudence, an excuse or justification is a form of immunity which must be distinguished from an exculpation. ...
Mistaken Identity may refer to albums: Mistaken Identity (Kim Carnes album) Mistaken Identity (Delta Goodrem album) This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. ...
A frameup refers to the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence in order to prove someone guilty of a crime. ...
Falsified evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is used to either convict an innocent person, or to guarantee conviction of a guilty person. ...
False Confession was a hardcore punk band in the early 1980s that emerged in the Oxnard, California area. ...
Automatism is a disassociative state where the individual suffering from it has no control over their actions. ...
The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an infant are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. ...
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. ...
In a criminal trial, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, via which defendants may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill at the time of their allegedly criminal actions. ...
In criminal law of commonwealth countries, the defense of mental disorder - sometimes called the defence of mental illness - is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were at the time of their...
The MNaghten Rules are used to establish insanity as an excuse to potential criminal liability, but the definitional criteria establish insanity in the legal and not the psychological sense. ...
In criminal law, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity) is a potential defense by excuse by which defendants argue that although they broke the law, they should not be held criminally liable for doing so, as their mental functions were diminished or impaired. ...
Mistake of law is a defense sometimes raised in criminal cases, although rarely with any success. ...
Mistake of law and mistake of fact are two types of defense by excuse, via which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law or liable for damages under a civil law action. ...
An intoxication defense, in criminal law, is a defense by excuse, via which a defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were intoxicated. ...
This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ...
Categories: | ...
For English law on the criminal defence, see duress in English law. ...
This article is about the law definition of necessity. ...
For the country-specific law, see provocation in English law. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ...
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ...
A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. ...
In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ...
Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ...
In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ...
The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ...
The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ...
This article and defense of property deal with the legal concept of excused (sometimes termed justified) acts that might otherwise be illegal. ...
English law
Generally, see self-defence in English law. In addition to the right of self-defence at common law, s3 Criminal Law Act 1967 states that Image File history File links Circle-question-red. ...
In English criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
- A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in arresting offenders or suspects.
Insofar as an attack on propety is a crime, reasonable force may be used to prevent the crime or to arrest the offender, whether it be theft of a sum of money or the damage of an object. In many cases of robbery and burglary, the threat will be to both a person and property, and this combination can be a powerful defence. In AG's Reference (No 2 of 1983) (1984) 1 AER 988 Lane CJ. held that a defendant who manufactured ten petrol bombs to defend his shop during the Toxteth Riots could set up the defence of showing that he possessed an explosive substance "for a lawful purpose" if he could establish that he was acting in self-defence to protect himself or his family or property against an imminent and apprehended attack by means which he believed to be no more than reasonably necessary to meet the attack. In theory, the defence of property by itself cannot reasonably provide a justification for inflicting serious injury, but there are a number of cases approving considerable violence to arrest criminals threatening property. Everyday instance of theft: the bike which fits on this wheel has disappeared. ...
Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
A picture of some derelict terraces in Toxteth. ...
Although R v Scully (1824) 171 ER 1213 held that it was not justifiable to shoot an intruder merely to arrest him, on the facts, “the life of the prisoner was threatened, and if he considered his life in actual danger, he was justified in shooting the deceased as he had done; but if, not considering his own life in danger, he rashly shot this man, who was only a trespasser, he would be guilty of manslaughter.” See self-defence (Australia) for a comparative view on whether the use of excessive force causing death should give rise to a mitigatory defence and "Reform" below. In Mead and Belt's Case (1823) 68 ER 1006. Holroyd J. instructed a jury that violence could not be used against a civil trespasser, adding: “But, the making an attack upon a dwelling, and especially at night, the law regards as equivalent to an assault on a man's person; for a man's house is his castle and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault." In the criminal law of Australia self-defence may be a complete defence to criminal liability for causing injury in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive. ...
The most recent case on using force against a burglar is Anthony Martin v R (2001) EWCA 2245 [1] which resulted in the householder being convicted and a loss for the "castle" theory. As the law currently stands, a person in possession can use no more force than he or she reasonably believes necessary to remove a trespasser from the premises, Further, where the threat to the land or its possession is not immediate and other measures could be taken which would make the use of force unnecessary, e.g. calling the police or seeking remedies through the courts, the defence will normally be lost. But in Chamberlain v Lindon (1998) 1 WLR 1252 [2] Lindon demolished a wall to protect a right-of-way, honestly believing that it was a reasonable means of protecting his property (and, incidentally, avoiding litigation). It was held that it was not necessary to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law. Right-of-way is a legal term which may have any of several meanings: priority at a crossing, or in traffic. ...
For the purpose of the criminal law, what mattered was whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable. Although this case is on the specific interpretation of the statutory defence under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971, the fact that the defendant was not out of time after nine months of inaction is interesting. On a similar statutory defence, DPP v Bayer and Others (2004) 1 Cr. App. R. 493 [3] dealt with defence of private property as a defence to aggravated trespass under s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
It was held that if defendants argued that they had used reasonable force to defend property from actual or imminent damage which would constitute a criminal act then the court had to consider whether, on the facts as the defendants honestly believed them to be, the force that had been used was reasonable in all the circumstances. Since the defendants knew that there was nothing unlawful about growing GM maize on the land, defence of property was not available.
Reform The defence of "private defence" or "protective force" when unlawful force is used or imminently threatened against a person who may use proportionate force to defend persons or property is to be distinguished from the line of authority which is concerned with a similar defence against trespassers. In the Law Commission's Report No. 218 Offences Against the Person and General Principles (1993) at pp 106-110) these defences are set out (so far as they relate to defence of property) as follows: - 27(i) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he believes them to be, does not constitute an offence:
- (c) to protect his property . . . from trespass;
- (d) to protect property belonging to another from . . . damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of the other) from trespass . . .
- 29(i) For the purposes of s 27 . . .
- (a) a person uses force in relation to . . . property not only where he applies force to, but also where he causes an impact on, . . . that property;"
References Law Commission. Partial Defences to Murder: Overseas Studies Consultation Paper No 173 (Appendices) [4] |
Feeds |
Contact