This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Bird [1985] 2 All E.R. 513

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 12/02/2024 07:13

Judgement for the case R v Bird

KEY POINTS

  • In the law of crime, self-defense is a recognized legal concept often invoked in cases of unlawful wounding. To establish self-defense, one must demonstrate a genuine unwillingness to engage in a physical altercation. 

  • The assessment of self-defense hinges on whether resorting to force the only viable method for protection was.

  • The law may require individuals to temporize, disengage, or withdraw from a situation before taking defensive action. This underscores the legal considerations surrounding the possibility of engaging in self-defense and evaluating alternatives before resorting to force.

FACTS

  • Debbie Bird (‘Appellant’), a 17-year-old girl, was involved in an incident where she held a glass and lunged at a young man, causing him injury. 

  • She faced trial on a charge of unlawful wounding. 

    • During the trial, she asserted that the young man had slapped and pushed her against a wall, prompting her to act in self-defense. 

    • She claimed not to have realized until later that she was holding a glass in her hand. 

  • The jury received directions that self-defense couldn't be used to justify an attack, emphasizing the need for a person claiming self-defense to demonstrate, through action, an unwillingness to engage in a fight. 

  • Despite her defense, the appellant was convicted. This set the stage for an appeal against the conviction.

JUDGEMENT

  • The appeal was allowed.

  • The judgment held that using the term "necessary" in the judge's instructions to the jury imposed an unduly high obligation on the appellant. It was recognized that a person could legitimately claim self-defense in certain circumstances without necessarily temporizing, disengaging, or withdrawing.

  • The jury was deemed misdirected, and given the circumstances, the conviction was quashed.

  • The court, per Curium, emphasized that if a defendant was proven to have been attacking, retaliating, or seeking revenge, their actions could not be construed as genuine self-defense.

    • While proof of attempting to retreat or call off a fight might have been a compelling means of refuting the suggestion that the defendant was the aggressor, retaliator, or seeking revenge, it was underscored that this was not the exclusive method of achieving such rebuttal.

COMMENTARY

  • This legal case involving a 17-year-old appellant revolves around an altercation where she wielded a glass, injuring a young man, leading to a trial on charges of unlawful wounding.

    • The appellant claimed self-defense, contending that the young man had assaulted her, pushing her against a wall. She argued that a need for self-preservation prompted her actions, unaware initially that she held a glass.

  • During the trial, the jury received instructions that self-defense could not justify an attack, emphasizing the necessity for the person claiming self-defense to demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in a fight. Despite her defense, the appellant was convicted, prompting an appeal.

  • The appeal's success hinged on the judgment's critique of the judge's instructions, particularly the use of the term "necessary," which was deemed to impose an excessively high obligation on the appellant.

    • Consequently, the jury was considered misdirected, leading to the quashing of the conviction.

  • This case highlights the nuanced nature of self-defense claims and the importance of balanced legal instructions in determining culpability.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • Victim pushed Defendant against a wall and slapped her, so she hit him with a glass (not realising that she was holding the glass).

  • Judge said that self-defence was not open to an assailant: only the attacked party. To be the attacked party it was necessary to prove that one had tried to disengage or demonstrate unwillingness to fight.

  • She was convicted.

  • CA allowed her appeal. They said that unwillingness to fight or attempts to withdraw, etc. were merely evidence of being the attacked party, rather than the attacker, and there were other ways this could be proved.

Lord Lane

  • Says the duty to retreat no longer exists and therefore, while retreat may provide evidence of Defendant’s situation, it is not necessary. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on R v Bird

Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Criminal LawDefences Notes (32 pages)
Criminal LawDefences Short Notes (28 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...