R v Owino [1996] 2 Cr App R 128
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:52 UTC
Defendant committed actual bodily harm against his wife, Victim, and he was convicted after the judge gave the standard direction on self-defence (albeit late).
Defendant appealed on the basis that Defendant’s force was only unlawful if he intended to use more force than HE BELIEVED was necessary.
CA said that while the court had to take the circumstances as Defendant believed them to be (subjective) the actual force permitted had to be “reasonable” by objective standards.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
R v Williams (Gladstone)
Victim saw X rob a woman and restrained X. Defendant, who hadn’t seen the robbery, thought that Victim was unlawfully assaulting X (from the fact that Victim lied to Defendant about being a policeman...
R v Martin (Tony)
Victims broke onto Defendant’s home to rob it and, without warning, Defendant shot Victims, killing one of them. Self defence, CA said, did not apply since, even though Defendant was eccentric, he di...
R v Keane
In legal contexts, self-defense refers to the right of an individual to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm or danger. A fundamental principle allows individuals to respond...
R v Cairns
Defendant was driving home when Victim jumped on his bonnet. Defendant, believing Victim to be hostile to him, braked so that Victim fell off and ran over him, causing GBH ( grievous bodily harm) . D...
R v Conway
Defendant was convicted of dangerous driving when he was trying to escape attackers, in reasonable fear for the safety of himself and his passenger. Judge did not put a direction of necessity. CA sai...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.