private defence

The test for private defence is an objective one.

It is also possible to act in private defence against someone who lacks criminal capacity, such as a mentally disordered person.

So are a few departments of the Netherlands Air Force and some private defence companies.

After graduating from law school in 1989, he became an assistant Crown attorney in 1991, and later worked as a private defence lawyer.

The accused failed to testify, and his defence of putative private defence failed.

Private defence - If it is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Originally erected for private defence and as status symbols, today they form part of Italy's best-preserved medieval town - rich in history and culture.

The court held that the difference between private defence and putative private defence was significant:

Right of Private Defence.

Private defence (or self-defence) is conduct directed at the person responsible for the duress or compulsion or threat.

If the accused believes, erroneously but honestly, that his person or property is in danger, his conduct in defence of it is not private defence.

In 1972, the Dunstan Labor government introduced a consenting adults in private defence in South Australia.

Private defence and necessity are closely related: Both allow a person to protect interests of value to him, such as life, bodily integrity and property, against threatening danger.

A person acts in "private defence," and therefore lawfully, when he uses force to ward off an unlawful attack against his or someone else's property or person.

A person acts in private defence if he uses force to repel an unlawful attack by another upon his person or his property, or another recognised legal interest.

One theory suggests that private tower-like structures proliferate in areas where central authority is weak, leading to a need for a status symbol incorporating private defences against small-scale attacks.

In cases of necessity and private defence, the question is this: Under which circumstances would the legal convictions of the community consider it reasonable to inflict harm to prevent it?

I set up Meetings, hotel Rooms, and private Defence Funders that prowl and look for defence Cuts to match their Corporate Plunder.

In the circumstances there was prima facie proof that De Oliveira could not have entertained an honest belief that he was entitled to act in private defence.

In principle, it would seem he should be able to do so; where the attacker is a citizen, the bystander may certainly intervene, both on grounds of private defence, and the prevention of crime.

In R v K, an important case in South African criminal law, the Appellate Division held that, in cases of private defence, the assault on the accused need not be committed culpably.

One therefore cannot invoke the justification of self-defence when acting in the interests of another person, but it is possible to invoke the justification of private defence when acting in one's own interests.

Private defence always stems from and is always directed at an unlawful human attack; necessity, on the other hand, may stem either from an unlawful human attack or from chance circumstances, such as an act of nature.

Questions of negligence, contributory negligence and remoteness of damage are frequently wrapped up together, and so are questions of contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria, and of necessity and private defence.

Whereas, in cases of private defence, the act of defence is always directed at an unlawful human attack, in cases of necessity it is directed at either the interests of another innocent party or a mere legal provision.