R.V. Martin (Anthony Edward (2001) ECWA Crim 2245; Q.B1 Case (Critic) - Essay Example

? R.V. Martin (Anthony Edward (2001) ECWA Crim 2245; Q.B1 Case (Critic) How did the case impact the law? Mr. Anthony Edward Martinwent to trial in the Crown court at Norwich. Mr. Justice Owen tried Mr Martin; he was accused of the five counts. The first count was that of the murder of Freddie Barras the second was the count on the attempted murder of Brendan Fearon, which translates as wounding with intent. The third count possession of a firearm in the intent of harmful life and the fifth count was the possession of a firearm without a certificate. Mr. Martin pleaded guilty to the possession of a firearm without a certificate all the other counts he pleaded not guilty. The jury convicted the defendant with a majority of 10 to 2 of murder and wounding with intent. Mr. Martin was acquitted of the attempted murder and possession of a gun with the intent of endangering life. Mr. Martin sentence is life imprisonment for murder, a ten year imprisonment for wounding with intent and 12 months imprisonment in relation to the possession of a gun without certificate. The time that Mr. Martin committed the offences, he was facing two men who were burgling him, it is true that he did shoot the two men, but in his defence, Mr. Martin points that the crimes were committed in self-defence. The jury could convict the defendant if self-defence evidence presented by the defendant raised doubts or the fact that Mr, Martin had used excessive force. The manslaughter charge that Mr. Martin faced would mean the defendant is believed to have used excessive force then the sentence would not be a life imprisonment. Then this would mean that the jury did not believe the defendants defence of having acted on self-defence. The facts that led to, the sentencing of Mr. Martin is knowledge that Mr. Martin used his firearm, yet he knew he was entitled to possessing it. The jury strongly believe that the although it is true that the two men who broke into Mr. Martins house intended to commit a burglary, Mr. martin was entitled to use reasonable force yet he used excessive force when he shot the 16 year old dead and left the other seriously injured. According to the jury Mr. Martin did not act reasonably in both of the cases. The judge in passing the sentence took into consideration the frustration that Mr, Martin felt at the event of the Burglary as well as the medical report presented by his doctor. The court put into account the situation threat Mr. Martin faced, but it also pointed out that a dangerous weapon was not to be used in the manner that Mr. Martin used during the night of the Burglary. According to Almandras, she points out that the law states clearly that a householder may be liable in civil law or criminal law or in both if he is found to have used unwarranted force in opposition to a burglar or trespasser resulting to the death of the intruder or injury. Matters raised during Mr. Martin’s case suggest that any householder who kills or injuries a burglar will have a complete defence. The defendant is acquitted if he used was reasonable force and this must prove to be in defence of himself or another in the prevention of a crime (2011. p.1). The principal issue raised by conservatives is the measure of reasonable force, which they argue, should be proven, and the householders would not face prosecution unless their action is proven grossly disproportionate. However, democrats support the view that the current law was reliable and did not require a change. In the case, of Mr. Martin Almandras observes that the accused Mr. Martin had experienced several break ins. Mr. Martin had already expressed his dissatisfaction with the police response. On the night of the burglary, Mr. Martin shot onto the two burglars with an unlicensed gun. During his appeal, Mr. Martin presented fresh psychiatric evidence showing that, he was suffering from a long personal disorder. However, the court still ruled that the Mr. Martins state of mind was irrelevant to the purpose of self-defence. The psychiatric evidence was relevant for partial defence of diminished responsibility (2011, p. 7). Cases such as Mr. Martins do give rise to public and press attention this is mainly on the focus of the laws on self-defence. Matters’ arising is for the amendment of laws that give householders greater protection from criminal prosecution. Many parties have criticised the concept of reasonable force the argument is that the term is too vague and unclear. This becomes hard for the householders to determine if their actions might result in a criminal prosecution. Many bills have been forwarded to push for the reforms of the law on self- defence and the protection of household defenders against prosecution (Almandras, 2011.p.11). The law on self-defence does state that a person is allowed to act in self-defence. If the evidence, of self-defence is present then the court should have the ability to prove that the accused did not act in self-defence that way the verdict will be guilty. However, without that proof then the verdict must not be guilty (Self-defence, 2009, p.32). Why did the judges reach the decision they did? The rule on self-defence is that the reasonableness of the defendant is accessed in the light of the facts. In R.V martins’ case, the defendant was convicted of murder. On appealing, the defendant sought to present fresh evidence. The defendant claimed to be suffering from a paranoid personality disorder exacerbated by depression. The defendants argued that he perceived a breaking into the house posed a serious threat to his safety than would a normal person. The jury, however, rejected the relevance of this evidence to self-defence, the court allowed the relevance to diminished responsibility (Hart Publishing, 2002, 1). The court examined the whole situation in three folds: the facts, the danger presented by the facts, and the defendants response to the facts. The court states that, in adjudicating for self-defence, the facts must be assumed that the defendant perceived them; however, the court considers the danger of the facts was a matter of objective. In the assessment of the whether the danger of the facts was reasonable, the personal characteristic of a personal disorder was to be disregarded. The judges reached the decision they made since they considered Mr. Martins options. According to the jury, Mr Martin would have used reasonable force to protect himself and his home. However, Mr Martin did not act reasonably, when he shot one of the intruders and seriously injured the other. Mr. Martin is also seen to have taken the law into his hands. Although the court did consider the evidence of his medical witness, the situation that he faced during the burglary and the condition that he was subjected during that night. Let us consider the case that the Privy Council handed down its advice in case the defendant shot and killed two men in the name of self-defence. The defendant appealed against his conviction for murder. The defendants’ argument was that the judge had misdirected by inviting the jury to assess the reasonableness of defenders self defence because of facts as they were rather than the facts as the defendants believed them to be. The Privy Council expressed that the proper test for self-defence would be as follows: according to Privy Council the jury’s consideration was that if the appellant honestly believed that he was right in defending himself. If that is true, and considering the circumstances that posed a danger then it is true the appellant honestly believed in the amount of force, which he used reasonably, and, therefore, the jury would be able to acquit the defendant, but that did not apply in the mentioned case. This ruling does contradict the court of appeals judgement in the martins case (Hart Publishing, 2002, p.2.) Let us consider the law under the defence of property. The common law states that a person in possession of real property or personal property is justified in using non-deadly force against a would be dispossession. This applies if the person reasonably believes that the force he uses is to prevent unlawful and imminent dispossession of the property. Mr. Martin believed that he was in danger, so he acted on self-defence. The prosecution had the chance to prove that the defendant was not exercising self-defence. The court considered the fact that a defendant is allowed to use reasonable force in self-defence, and in protecting others for whom he is responsible and his property. The jury in determining the reasonability of the defendant the jury had to consider all the circumstances including what the defendant believed in at the time of the he was defending himself. During such a consideration, the jury does not look if the defendant is wrong but what matters is the fact that the defendant belief and if it is genuine. The jury’s decision was based on the belief that Mr. Martin was acting in self defence, or their assessment on whether Mr. Martin used an unreasonable amount of force. Mr Martin’s remarks also led to the jury’s belief that he intended to hurt the burglars. In a number of occasions, the Mr. Martin expressed is dissatisfaction of the police. His remarks that self help would be the best way to handle the cases of burglary. The judge considered the forensic evidence regarding the positions from which the shots were made, the judge made pointed out to the jury that the shots made by Mr. Martin could not have been made from the stairs. The judge does rule out the staircase as the point from which Mr. Martin fires the shots that injured the two victims. However, Mr. Martin does maintain the argument that he fired the shots from the staircase in spite the forensic evidence proving that the shots did not originate from the stairs. These contradictions in the defendants’ case do alter the judgement directed towards the defendant. Because of the evidence, the defendant appeared to have fired the shots with the intent of killing or injuring. It is also possible that the judges considered the rights of the Burglars and these influenced their judgement. Flinn looks into the issue of the rights of burglars as stipulated by the human rights. Flinn states that the right of burglars have always been a part of the English law. For instance, the Burglars who broke into Mr. Martins properties are the same people who filed a lawsuit against him and caused his imprisonment. Mr. Fearon still claims for damage against Mr. Martin this is stemming from the injury to his leg. The judges then allowed the claim to proceed. The fact that Mr. Fearon is a criminal does not deny him the right to file a law suit denying him translates to a violation of his rights. The Martin case raised an alarm that captured the media, and the political attention on the sentence passed. It is, therefore, true to say in as much as we believe that the sentencing of Mr. Martin was faced with influence from the media as well as political influence. During the appeal process, the judge reduced the sentence of Mr. Martin, and charges of murder were reduced to manslaughter. Does the decision leave the law in a satisfactory position? The sentence made on the case of Mr. Martin facts, and how these facts affected his decision in utilizing unreasonable force seems to contradict with the sentence made on a similar case. It is, however, clear that the law does. The argument presented by Antony Martin seems genuine in the manner that his life was truly in danger, although prosecution present a different scenario that he is wrong about that fact. According to the law a genuine reason in spite of being unreasonable still stands as sufficient prove for warranting a self defence. The law does stipulate that acting in fear of one's life and limb is sufficient prove for a self defence (Hart publishing, 2002, p.3). The law does allow for an appeal for consideration for the sentences made to householders who feel the sentence was not appropriate for their case or the rise of new evidence for their case. However, it is also appropriate for the law to be further developed to accommodate the various circumstances’ that affect the ruling of the case. For instance, the use of reasonable force as a measure for determining whether the defendant acted out of self-defence does not give the defendants a fair hearing. This fact needs to be revised to avoid the oppression of householders. The parliament is also another crucial part when it comes to reforming the existing law on self-defence to accommodate the issue of protection of the householders. The European government has been in the process of pushing for the reforms to the law of self-defence. This is in view of the outrage demonstrated by homeowners who feel that the prosecution of homeowners defending their property from criminals is inappropriate. The main concern being the issue of the amount of reasonable force that the jury considers the case presented does appear to be consistent with the European council of human rights. This is in the sense that the burglars although having wronged members of the society especially the owner of the property they still get to file lawsuits against the defendants. The case is in consistence with the European law in that a person found no matter how influential he is guilty of a charge faces the full sentence. Let us conclude the discussion by saying that, the case of Anthony martin upon appealing did receive a fair hearing as well as a fair judgement based on the new evidence presented by the psychiatrist. The law needs to be revised, and to formulate a bill that gives householders greater protection if they have to use self-defence against intruders or trespassers who pose a danger to their safety. What the government need to focus on is to define the basis upon which an individual would use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property. However, in view of changing the idea of clause reasonable force to grossly disproportionate does face opposition in that some members believe that it will encourage vigilantism that could sanction extrajudicial punishment. When handling the cases related to self-defence, the prosecutors should consider the degree of an offence committed by the victim, the degree of excessiveness of force used by the accused. The extent of damage loss and injuries sustained by either or both parties of the incident, and lastly the prosecutor should examine whether the accused was making an honest or overzealous attempt to abide by the law rather than breaking the law for the purposes of retribution or revenge. It is of considerable concern for the prosecutor to be able to strike the balance when he encounters a case where the householder has used violence against an intruder. The prosecutor in this case should consider whether the public interest in promoting the contribution of citizens in promoting law and order rand discouraging the use of violence and vigilantism. Bibliographies Almandras, S. 2011. Householder and The Law of Selfdefence. London: House of Commons. CommonWealth. 2009. Self Defence. Commonwealth. Department of Justice. Criminal Code (R.S.C, 1985,C.C-46). http://lawjustice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c- 46/filltext.html (accessed January 14, 2012). Defense of property. London, 2008. Flinn, M. 2011. Do Burglars Have Human Rights. 04 April.[online] http://khumanrights.blog.com/author/mef31/ (accessed January 14, 2012). Hart Publishing.,2002. Self- Defence, Other Defences and Subjectivity. London: Hart Publishing. Martin V R [2001]ECWA crim2245. 00/2560/51 (Royal Court of Justice, 30 October 2001). R.Riley, Kristen A. Sonia Katyal and Angela.,2009. “In Defense of Property.” The Yale Journal, 118-1022. Sixthformlaw.info. Sixth Form Law Cases. http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_33_vol_dim_res.htm#Martin%20%28An thony%20Edward%29,%20R%20v%20[2002]%20CA (accessed January 14, 2012). Smith, E.,2008. Law Reports/ Criminal Appeals. Sweet and Maxwell. Read More