Bus driver sacked OMG

[Highway Man]

Nonsense. It's UK criminal law dummy. The case tested the 'reasonable force' threshold, dummy.

titter

 

[motorbiking]

Always.

This is still true though and why chicken bikers is so embarrassed...

The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.

unless the use of a weapon is not disproportionate. Belief that the suspect is armed, weapon was something readily available, rather than a specific prohibited weapon etc.

And this....
The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "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...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

isn't true because:

It all comes down to the individual facts of each case. In the heat of the moment, a defendant isn't expected to weight the niceties of the situation precisely.

which is correct.

So when you keep posting about the common law right to use reasonable force to defend yourself as per:

Nonsense. It's UK criminal law dummy. The case tested the 'reasonable force' threshold.

which is a case almost entirely about the common law defence of reasonable force to defend yourself in a home intrusion. It doesn't address the statutory defence that a person has under Sec 3,1 Criminal Law Act 1967 giving power to use reasonable force :

(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.

and just in case you were confused about how common law applies there is a helpful subsection 2 which avoids any doubt or ambiguity around common law:
(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.

Nothing requires a person to cease, just because the criminal has stopped committing the crime or is running away.

 

[Elsa TLC]

I'll be stalking watching you.

Rob remembers this well. .

Have still got all my details?

 

[MNW67]

It probably depends on the situation where reasonable force is being used.

It would seem logical that reasonable force in self-defence can be stronger than reasonable force to prevent crime, which in turn can be stronger than reasonable force to make a citizens arrest.

But there is also the heat of the moment argument.

It might be reasonable for Mottie to chase somebody with a pole because he had already been using it to defend his property and his dander was up.

But if an uninvolved third party had joined the chase, carrying a pole, that might not be reasonable.

 

[Highway Man]

unless the use of a weapon is not disproportionate. Belief that the suspect is armed, weapon was something readily available, rather than a specific prohibited weapon etc.

isn't true because:


which is correct.

So when you keep posting about the common law right to use reasonable force to defend yourself as per:

which is a case almost entirely about the common law defence of reasonable force to defend yourself in a home intrusion. It doesn't address the statutory defence that a person has under Sec 3,1 Criminal Law Act 1967 giving power to use reasonable force :


and just in case you were confused about how common law applies there is a helpful subsection 2 which avoids any doubt or ambiguity around common law:
(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.

Nothing requires a person to cease, just because the criminal has stopped committing the crime or is running away.

I think this sort of blows everyone out of the water. Time to give it up now trolls.

 

[motorbiking]

It probably depends on the situation where reasonable force is being used.

It would seem logical that reasonable force in self-defence can be stronger than reasonable force to prevent crime, which in turn can be stronger than reasonable force to make a citizens arrest.

But there is also the heat of the moment argument.

It might be reasonable for Mottie to chase somebody with a pole because he had already been using it to defend his property and his dander was up.

But if an uninvolved third party had joined the chase, carrying a pole, that might not be reasonable.

It's a while since I watched the very amusing video. But I recall, some masked(?) criminals started attacking Mottie's scooter trying to bust the steering lock, Mottie in the heat of the moment, being outnumbered grabbed something hefty to hand to assist in the discouragement of the crime. The masked criminals saw the bloke with a piece of scaffolding chasing them and legged it. Mottie pursued and may or may not have managed to give one of them clonk on the elbow. He then stopped chasing them and reported the crime to plod.

So lets walk through it:

- were they committing an indictable offence giving Mottie the power of arrest - yes
- was mottie entitled to use reasonable force to prevent the crime - yes
- is a piece of scaffolding a generally prohibited weapon, on object intended to inflict injury. - no
- was it clearly something he grabbed in the moment - yes
- could he reasonably expect the suspects who outnumbered him to be armed and dangerous - yes
- since he had clearly seen the offenders was he lawfully able to pursue them - yes
- at the time one was clonked, was he still at large - yes
- at any point did mottie have them under his control and decide to beat them to a pulp - no.
- having apprehended them, did he inflict serious violence on them in revenge - no.

Nothing unlawful about what he did.

 

[noseall]

waffle.

The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.


The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "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...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

 

[motorbiking]

and still no source.

 

[yorksbuilder]

I haven't been watching the threads much recently. Help me, is 'King Billy' best on ignore?

 

[motorbiking]

I haven't been watching the threads much recently. Help me, is 'King Billy' best on ignore?

Himmy. again.

 

[MNW67]

There doesn't actually seem to be much case law. The only case I have found so far where force was judged unreasonable is R v Munir Hussain. But that was a pretty extreme case.

 

[noseall]

which is a case almost entirely about the common law defence of reasonable force to defend yourself in a home intrusion. It doesn't address the statutory defence that a person has under Sec 3,1 Criminal Law Act 1967 giving power to use reasonable force :

Irrelevant.
It tests 'reasonable force' and in some ways defines it, in part. It can be applied and tested across varying UK laws, or circumstances.

It doesn't address the statutory defence that a person has under Sec 3,1 Criminal Law Act 1967 giving power to use reasonable force :

This will clear it up for you...

The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.


The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "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...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

 

[morqthana]

Nothing requires you to stop attempting to apprehend a criminal, just because they are no longer in the act of committing an indictable offence. Your right to use reasonable force continues while they remain at large.

But if someone is no longer in the act of committing an indictable offence, is it reasonable in the circumstances to pursue them and use a scaffold pole as a weapon?

 

[noseall]

But if someone is no longer in the act of committing an indictable offence, is it reasonable in the circumstances to pursue them and use a scaffold pole as a weapon?

Depends if they are still in possession of something that is yours or if you wish to try and detain them. Not sure about brandishing a weapon though?

If they are simply fleeing then this applies...


The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.


The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "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...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

 

[MNW67]

The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.


The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)

• Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "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...".
• Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
• Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.

But what about the transitions. That is where it gets complicated for me. When does chasing somebody off as part of preventing a crime, turn into chasing somebody in order to hit them as punishment. In the heat of the moment, a civilian is given quite a lot of leeway.