Private defence
Murdie, A.
Private defence - 2005 - Solicitors' Journal 149(9) 4 March 2005, 254(1) .
Examines the issue of the application of force in defence of property in the light of the "DPP v Bayer", ([2003] EWHC 2567 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 2856) judgment, which has if anything narrowed the right to defend property. The defendants (B), who had obstructed the planting of genetically-modified (GM) crops, raised at trial a plea of defence of property at common law believing that the GM crops would cause environmental damage nearby. This district judge accepted this defence but it was overturned on appeal. CA determined that since there had been no unlawful act or criminal threat to property, the justification of private defence could not stand. Concludes that "Bayer", although consistent with earlier authority that an objective unlawful threat is necessary for a plea of private defence to succeed, failed to address situations where defendants mistakenly use force in the wrong belief that their property is endangered. View "Bayer" at www.bailii.org.
DPP V BAYER
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS
TRESPASS
COMMON LAW
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 S68(1)
Private defence - 2005 - Solicitors' Journal 149(9) 4 March 2005, 254(1) .
Examines the issue of the application of force in defence of property in the light of the "DPP v Bayer", ([2003] EWHC 2567 (Admin), [2004] 1 WLR 2856) judgment, which has if anything narrowed the right to defend property. The defendants (B), who had obstructed the planting of genetically-modified (GM) crops, raised at trial a plea of defence of property at common law believing that the GM crops would cause environmental damage nearby. This district judge accepted this defence but it was overturned on appeal. CA determined that since there had been no unlawful act or criminal threat to property, the justification of private defence could not stand. Concludes that "Bayer", although consistent with earlier authority that an objective unlawful threat is necessary for a plea of private defence to succeed, failed to address situations where defendants mistakenly use force in the wrong belief that their property is endangered. View "Bayer" at www.bailii.org.
DPP V BAYER
GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS
TRESPASS
COMMON LAW
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 S68(1)