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

R.V. Martin (Anthony Edward (2001) ECWA Crim 2245 Q.B1 Case (Critic) - Essay ExampleThe jury could convict the defendant if self-defence evidence presented by the defendant raise doubts or the accompaniment that Mr, Martin had used excessive fight. The manslaughter charge that Mr. Martin faced would mean the defendant is believed to run through 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 entitle to possessing it. The jury strongly believe that the although it is true that the cardinal men who broke into Mr. Martins house intended to commit a burglary, Mr. martin was entitled to use level-headed force yet he used excessive force when he shot the 16 year old dead and left the other seriously injured. agree to the jury Mr. Martin did not act reasonably in both of the looks. The judge in passing the sentence took into consideration the frustration that Mr, Martin felt at the position 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 homeowner 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. Martins 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). T he 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 accepted 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 bear in mind was irrelevant to the purpose of self-defence. The psychiatric evide