| Defense Of Property |
Article Index for Defense Of |
Website Links For Defense |
Information AboutDefense Of Property |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DEFENSE OF PROPERTY | |
| criminal defenses | |
| tort law | |
|
The defense of property is a possible Justification used by Defendant s who argue that they should not be held Liable for the loss and injury they have caused because they were acting to protect their Property . Court s have generally ruled that the Use Of Force may be acceptable, but that "deadly force" is generally not acceptable in defending property, although it may be acceptable in Self-defense or, in some countries, the defense of one's home. As deadly force is not allowed, the setting of Booby-trap s and the use of dangerous guard dogs is also either not allowed or only allowed on strict terms such as the prominent dispay of warning notices. ENGLISH LAW Generally, see Self-defence In English Law . In addition to the right of self-defence at Common Law , s3 Criminal Law Act 1967 states that :A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in arresting offenders or suspects. Insofar as an attack on property is a crime, reasonable force may be used to prevent the crime or to arrest the offender, whether it be , honestly believing that it was a reasonable means of protecting his property (and, incidentally, avoiding litigation). It was held that it was not necessary to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law. For the purpose of the criminal law, what mattered was whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable. Although this case is on the specific interpretation of the statutory defence under s5 Criminal Damage Act 1971 , the fact that the defendant was not out of time after nine months of inaction is interesting. On a similar statutory defence, ''DPP v Bayer and Others'' (2004) 1 Cr. App. R. 493 {Link without Title} dealt with defence of private property as a defence to aggravated trespass under s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It was held that if defendants argued that they had used reasonable force to defend property from actual or imminent damage which would constitute a criminal act then the court had to consider whether, on the facts as the defendants honestly believed them to be, the force that had been used was reasonable in all the circumstances. Since the defendants knew that there was nothing unlawful about growing GM maize on the land, defence of property was not available. Reform The defence of "private defence" or "protective force" when unlawful force is used or imminently threatened against a person who may use proportionate force to defend persons or property is to be distinguished from the line of authority which is concerned with a similar defence against trespassers. In the Law Commission's Report No. 218 ''Offences Against the Person and General Principles'' (1993) at pp 106-110) these defences are set out (so far as they relate to defence of property) as follows: :27(i) The use of force by a person for any of the following purposes, if only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he believes them to be, does not constitute an offence: ::(c) to protect his property . . . from trespass; ::(d) to protect property belonging to another from . . . damage caused by a criminal act or (with the authority of the other) from trespass . . . :29(i) For the purposes of s 27 . . . ::(a) a person uses force in relation to . . . property not only where he applies force to, but also where he causes an impact on, . . . that property;" REFERENCES Law Commission. ''Partial Defences to Murder: Overseas Studies'' Consultation Paper No 173 (Appendices) {Link without Title} |
|
|