Open AccessComparing Self-Defence and Necessity in English and South African Law – R v Riddell [2018] 1 All ER 62; [2017] EWCA Crim 413
Author(s) -
Samantha Goosen,
Shan Hoctor
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
obiter (port elizabeth. online)/obiter (port elizabeth)
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2709-555X
pISSN - 1682-5853
DOI - 10.17159/obiter.v40i3.11198
Subject(s) - law , legislation , context (archaeology) , english law , political science , dangerous driving , criminology , sociology , history , archaeology
Although a motor vehicle has been held not to be a “dangerous weapon” in terms of the dangerous weapon legislation, a motor vehicle can certainly be used as a “weapon of death”. Can a motor vehicle then also be used as a means of defending one’s interests that are under attack? This is the issue that arose in the English case of R v Riddell [2018] 1 All ER 62; [2017] EWCA Crim 413, which is examined below in the broader context of a comparison between English and South African law on the defences of self-defence and duress, and private defence and necessity, respectively. (As is customarily the case, in this contribution the person accused of a crime is referred to as “the accused” where South African law is under discussion, and as “the defendant” where English law is discussed.)