You could call the police instead.
High Court Rules...
- Thread starter Odds
- Start date
-
- Tags
- palestine protests
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,368
- Reaction score
- 6,063
- Country
The scenario Himmy describes is already likely to be lawful. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. We discussed it on another thread, where Nosenout was caught posting AI rubbish that his links didn't back up.
The scenario you describe is also covered by law and has been discussed. Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
The scenario you describe is also covered by law and has been discussed. Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
It is a very limited defence and only applies in extreme cases where there is an immediate danger.
We have no idea of the reasons for the jury's decision.
It would have to be an immediate danger. You would have to believe that the bomb had been set to go off and that there wasn't time to call the police.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,368
- Reaction score
- 6,063
- Country
To be fair that is the scenario Himmy is describing. most of it is covered by Criminal Damage Act 1971 Sec 5,2 (b),common law of self defence, s3 Criminal Law Act 1967, which we've done to death.
Unfortunately it is Sec 5,3 Criminal Damage act that is frequently used to get off convictions. This is why the CPS try anything other than standard criminal damage.
Unfortunately it is Sec 5,3 Criminal Damage act that is frequently used to get off convictions. This is why the CPS try anything other than standard criminal damage.
I don't see why. It is clear that, for the defence to succeed, the action has to be to stop an immediate threat:
'(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.'
If you apply that section to the Elbit attack. The defendants would have to argue that they honestly believed that smashing computers and toilets in a factory in Bristol would stop Israel using the weapons, which had already been manufactured and transported to Israel, in an attack against Gaza within the next few minutes.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,368
- Reaction score
- 6,063
- Country
It's this bit that is not helpful to a prosecution.
It's there to protect genuine mistakes.
I know.
That is where cross examination comes in.
When the defendant says:
'I thought that by smashing a toilet in a factory in Bristol I would stop Israel from launching an imminent drone attack on Gaza'
The prosecution barrister would ask pointed questions, such as:
'What led you to believe that smashing a toilet in a factory in Bristol would stop Israel from launching an imminent drone attack on Gaza'
And when the defendant cannot give any sort of coherent answer, the jury would choose not to believe him. Or, as in this case, the judge would rule that it was utter nonsense and tell the jury to ignore that line of defence.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,368
- Reaction score
- 6,063
- Country
and yet I vaguely remember the prosector conceding that point. I will have a search. I thought it odd at the time.
