Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 2 December 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill.
Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill
In fact, I think that the film was ““Sudden Impact””, rather than ““Dirty Harry””. However, we have the right actor, even if I named the wrong movie and got the quote wrong; the Oklahoma law is certainly known as the ““Make my day”” law. Perhaps we can move out of the movie theatre, so that I can draw my introductory remarks to a close and turn to the Bill’s detail. The Bill in effect changes the law of self-defence in relation to burglary. The current law of self-defence is set out in section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:"““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.””" That is a very general definition. For a little more detail, one must go to the bible of criminal law, ““Archbold””s Criminal Pleadings, Evidence and Practice””. I consulted the 2005 edition, which states that the provisions of section 3"““cover the great majority of cases of self-defence and defence of others, and many cases of defence of property””—" which is what we are talking about—"““for in these cases the person who uses lawful force will be doing so for the purpose of preventing crime.””" ““Archbold”” notes that section 3 reflects the common law. The common law was well set out by the eminent Law Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in the Privy Council case of Palmer v. the Crown in 1971. Lord Morris said that"““the defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought . . . Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may only do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. Of these a jury can decide””."
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 440 c532
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Crime prevention Crimes against the person Crimes of violence Criminal law Buildings Burglary Criminal liability Firearms Protection Police Prosecutions Property Victims Trespass Self-defence
- Legislation
- Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 12:06:31 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283103
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283103
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_283103