| Citation | (1985) 1WLR 816 (CA) |
| Date of Judgement | 22nd March, 1985 |
| Appellant | Regina |
| Respondent | Bird |
| Court | England and Wales Court of Appeal |
| Bench | The Lord Chief Justice of England : Lord Lane Mr. Justice, Skinner Mr. Justice Simon Brown |
| Case Type | Criminal Case |
FACTS OF THE CASE
Debbie Bird, the appellant in this case, celebrated her seventeenth birthday on March 10, 1984, in Harlow. Unfortunately, the party took a dark turn, leading to her placement in a juvenile detention facility.
During the party, Darren Marder, a previous acquaintance of Debbie’s, attended with his new girlfriend, and a dispute erupted, the exact reasons for which are not necessary to delve into. Marder left briefly after a heated exchange with Debbie but returned shortly thereafter, resulting in another argument and exchange of harsh words. The events following their altercation are disputed, but what is clear is that Marder was struck in the face by Debbie while a glass of Pernod was in her hand. This unfortunate incident led to the fracturing of Marder’s eye, causing severe harm, although it’s evident that Debbie did not intend for such a serious outcome.
The prosecution argued that Marder had only slapped Debbie once to calm her down, a common practice to manage hysteria. They contended that, given this, Debbie could not have been acting in self-defense when she responded with a glass as a weapon. Additionally, testimony from Marder and his girlfriend suggested that Debbie had indicated a willingness to repeat her actions under similar circumstances, rather than expressing remorse. Mrs. Sharpe, the party’s host, also testified that Debbie had admitted to using the glass as a weapon.
When questioned by the police, Debbie herself claimed that she had only later realized she had a glass in her hand when she struck Marder.
Marder provided a different perspective, asserting that he had acted in self-defense as well. He claimed he had been pushed and threatened by Debbie, prompting him to slap her. According to his account, he was holding her, and her only recourse was to strike back in self-defense. In the heat of the moment, she did not realize she was holding a glass.
In summary, Debbie Bird’s seventeenth birthday party took a tragic turn, resulting in her being accused of injuring Darren Marder with a glass. The case revolves around conflicting accounts of self-defense, with both parties claiming they acted to protect themselves during a heated altercation.
ISSUES OF THE COURT
Whether the appellant is entitled to claim self defence ?
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
To begin with, the Judge made a mistake by instructing the jury that, in order for the complainant to claim self-defense, she had to show through her actions that she had no intention of engaging in a fight. This essentially summarizes the complainant’s argument, as presented by Mr. Pavry to this Court, which was a very informative and valuable argument, we must acknowledge.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
In this case, the court ruled that self-defense was not an option for the person who initiated the attack; it only applied to the party being attacked. In order to be considered the party being attacked, it was crucial to provide evidence of attempting to avoid or showing reluctance to engage in a fight. The person in question was found guilty. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) later overturned this decision. They stated that demonstrating a desire to avoid a fight or trying to withdraw from the situation were merely ways of proving that one was the party being attacked rather than the aggressor. Lord Lane emphasized that the obligation to retreat no longer existed, and while retreating might serve as evidence of the defendant’s situation, it was not obligatory.
REFERENCES
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff87960d03e7f57ec10d0
This Article is written by Aryan Soni of Innovative Institute of Law , CCS University, an intern at Legal Vidhiya.
