| Citation | (1985) 1WLR 816 (CA) |
| Date of Judgement | March 22, 1985 |
| Appellant | Regina |
| Respondent | Bird |
| Court | England and Wales Court of Appeal |
| Bench | The Lord Chief Justice of England: Lord LaneMr. Justice SkinnerMr. Justice Simon Brown |
| Case Type | Criminal Case |
FACTS OF THE CASE
Debbie Bird, the appellant, turned seventeen years old on March 10, 1984. In Harlow, there was a gathering. Sadly, it was during that party that the unfortunate things happened that led to her being placed in a child detention facility.
At the party, Darren Marder was a visitor; he would later become the victim of the actions that took place. Between around January and the middle of 1983, he was friendly with the appellant and they were dating. That tight connection had ended, but Marder showed up to the party with his new girlfriend, and a fight ensued for reasons that do not need to be discussed.Marder left when the appellant told him to after using a lot of foul language and swearing.
He foolishly returned a short while later, and the two of them got into another dispute and exchange of profanities. The parties disagreed over what transpired next, though not as much as disagreements do when such sudden occurrences occur. Marder was hit in the face by the appellant when he spilled a glass of Pernod over her. More instances of physical violence occurred between them. The appellant claimed that as she was being restrained and restrained up against a wall, the moment arrived when she rushed with her hand toward Marder,which, regrettably, was the hand that was holding the Pernod glass. He was struck in the face by the glass, which fractured and caused him to lose one eye. In the end, it was a terrible thing, but she obviously didn’t realize how much harm she was going to do to this young man.
According to the prosecution’s argument, Marder only smacked the appellant once, and that was to calm her down—a normal practice for treating hysteria. As a result, the jury was asked to draw the obvious conclusion that she could not have been using a weapon as dangerous as a glass in self-defense when she responded to that slap. Second, there was testimony from Marder and Miss Bryant, who was his new girlfriend, that the appellant claimed she would act in the same way again if the circumstances were the same, instead of expressing regret for the incident. Third, there was Mrs. Sharpe’s testimony, the owner of the home where the party was held, who claimed that Mrs. Sharpe was told by the appellant that she had stabbed Marder in the face with a glass after he had hit her during the incident.
The complainant herself was canvassed by the police. She said that it was only latterly that she realized that a glass was in her hand, the hand with which she struck the complainant.
The complainant gave substantiation. She claimed that she had been acting in self- defences. She was being pushed. Marder had said to her that he’d hit her if she didn’t shut up. He slighted her in the face, she was being held by him and allowed the only thing for her to do was to strike back to defend herself. In the agony of the moment, so to speak, she didn’t realize that she was holding the glass.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
Whether the appellant is entitled to claim self defence?
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
First of all, the Judge was in error in directing the jury that before the complainant could calculate upon a plea of self- defence, it was necessary that she should have demonstrated by her action that she didn’t want to fight. That really is the substance of the complainant’s case put forward byMr. Pavry to this Court in what, if we may say so, was a most helpful argument.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
In this case, it was held by the court that self- defence wasn’t open to assialant, only the attacked party. To be the attacked party it was necessary to prove that one had tried to liberate or demonstrate reluctance to fight. She was condemned. CA allowed her appeal. They said that reluctance to fight or attempts to withdraw etc were simply substantiation of being the attacked party, rather than the assialant, and there were other ways this could be proved. Lord lane says the duty to retreat no longer exists and thus, while retreat may give substantiation of D’s situation, it isn’t necessary.
REFRENCES
This Article is written by Manvi Verma of The Law School, University of Jammu and Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments