000			01653cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS68849
008			050322n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129137
100			_aMurdie, A.
245			_aPrivate defence
260			_c2005
490			_aSolicitors' Journal _v149(9) 4 March 2005, 254(1)
520			_aExamines 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.
590			_aABS
650			_aDPP V BAYER
650			_aGENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS
650			_aTRESPASS
650			_aCOMMON LAW
650			_aCRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 S68(1)
690			_aLAW
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2567.html _zView the decision on the BAILII website...
942			_n0
999			_c74969 _d74969