R. v. Bird, (1985) 1 WLR 816 (CA)

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the city of Harlow, a party was thrown by the appellant Debbie Bird. On 10^th March 1984 she had turned seventeen and was celebrating her birthday with her relatives and close friends. It was in no time that the events took a horrific shape from the joyous occasion and changed the atmosphere to a tensed situation. Darren Marder, came to the party as a visitor without invitation from the appellant and he had dated the appellant Debbie Bird from January to the middle of 1983. He being the appellant’s ex boyfriend fumed the already bad situation as he was accompanied by his current girlfriend Miss Bryant.

It was in no time that appelant noticed this movement and foul words were exchanged between both the parties. Things deteriorated furthermore and led to swearing on each other, it was then when Darren chose to walk away from the venue. Things calmed down for a while, but astonishingly just after little time elapsed, he returned back to the venue. Debbie Bird couldn’t contain her anger this team and things just got escalated. In the heat of the moment, she throw the Pernod drink she was having over Darren’s face. 

On the contrary, Darren was quick to react and according to appellant’s testimony he slapped her face and pinned her on the wall. In the rage of anger, things simply took the worst shape it could have led to. The appellant Debbie Bird got furious and didn’t think twice before hitting him back at that very moment. 

Later she realized that it was the same hand with which she was holding the Pernod glass and she had punched on Darren’s face with that glass. The glass broke into some pieces, and one of the scattered pieces hit Darren’s eye. The piece ruptured the layer of his eye leading to loss of an eye. The wound was irreparable in nature and the case went to Hon’ble trial court for its respectful decision.

ISSUES

1. Whether the acts of the appellant Debbie Bird were intentional in nature?
2. Whether an act of such grave nature can be treated as an act of self defense?
3. Whether this act could be laid against the opportunity to retreat (take a step backwards to safety) or an aspect of self defence?

ARGUMENTS 

The counsel for the appelant argued that Debbie Bird, the appelant had no intention to hurt Darren. A happy gathering was being engaged, and the series of actions was nothing but unfortunate. He stated that the conviction of Dennie according to the Hon’ble Trial Court’s Judgment shall be quashed as the circumstances clearly depict that she had no intention of engaging in a fight or act in any violent manner. The incident happened in the rage of anger and was a result of the sudden grave provocation.

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Trial Court convicted Debbie Bird in the case. And when Debbie Bird filed for an appeal in Court England and Wales Court of Appeal, the conviction was quashed. The court held the question of self-defense would have been substantial had the case been of homicide. In the present facts, Debbie Bird’s situation depicts that she didn’t want to enter into a fierce fight with Darren, it was a reaction to the situation.

The second observation made was she didn’t have an opportunity to retreat, that is she was not in the space to go to safety as everything happened in the heat of the moment.

REFERENCES

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec10d0?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Bird.php

This Article is written by Suyash Valecha of DES Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin