Self-Defence Exclusion in Criminal Conviction: Morrison v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2021]

Introduction

The case of Aaron Robert Dines known as Morrison versus Her Majesty's Advocate was adjudicated in the Scottish High Court of Justiciary on May 13, 2021. The appellant, Morrison, was convicted of attempted murder following an altercation in a play park where he allegedly assaulted the complainer, resulting in severe injuries inflicted by a knife. The primary issue on appeal centered on whether the trial judge erred in excluding Morrison's special defence of self-defence from the jury's consideration.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court upheld Morrison's conviction, affirming that the trial judge was correct in removing the special defence of self-defence from consideration. The court reasoned that the evidence did not sufficiently support the three necessary criteria for a self-defence claim: the appellant being the subject of an attack, having no reasonable means of escape, and the retaliation not being excessively cruel. Despite the appellant's argument that there was some evidence suggesting self-defence, the court found that the evidence was insufficient to compel the trial judge to allow the jury to consider this defence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to substantiate the legal reasoning:

Crawford v HM Advocate (1950): Established that a special defence should not be excluded if there is reasonable evidence to support it.
Whyte v HM Advocate (1996): Highlighted scenarios where the defence representative did not concede the impossibility of a defence, unlike the current case.
Telford v HM Advocate (2018): Demonstrated correct withdrawal of self-defence when the necessary criteria were not met.
Carr v HM Advocate (2013): Supported the approach of not withdrawing a special defence if there is any reasonable basis in the evidence.
Ferguson v HM Advocate (2009): Emphasized the responsibility of the trial judge to provide correct directions to the jury regarding available defences.

These precedents collectively underscore the stringent conditions under which a self-defence plea can be excluded from a jury's deliberation.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously analyzed whether the trial judge's decision to exclude the special defence of self-defence adhered to legal standards. The judge considered the absence of sufficient evidence to meet all three criteria necessary for self-defence:

Subject of Attack: While there was some evidence suggesting Morrison was under threat, it was insufficient to conclusively establish he was the primary target.
No Reasonable Means of Escape: The appellant demonstrated he was able to escape after the confrontation, undermining this criterion.
Retaliation Not Excessive: The repeated stabbing was deemed potentially excessively cruel, negating the self-defence claim.

Moreover, the defense counsel's agreement to withdraw the special defence after the judge's preliminary assessment further validated the exclusion. The court emphasized that without compelling evidence, the trial judge was within his rights to direct the jury accordingly.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance on the stringent application of self-defence claims in criminal cases. It underscores the necessity for robust evidence to support such defences and delineates the boundaries within which judges can exclude special defences from jury consideration. Future cases will likely reference this decision to evaluate the validity of special defence exclusions, ensuring that defendants cannot circumvent justifiable defences without substantial evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Special Defence of Self-Defence

A special defence like self-defence allows a defendant to justify their actions if they genuinely believed they were protecting themselves from imminent harm. To successfully claim self-defence, three criteria must be met:

Subject of Attack: The defendant was being attacked.
No Reasonable Means of Escape: The defendant had no safe way to retreat from the situation.
Retaliation Not Excessive: The response was proportionate to the threat faced.

In this case, the court found that Morrison did not meet all three criteria, particularly questioning the proportionality and the absence of a reasonable escape route.

Conclusion

The High Court of Justiciary's decision in Morrison v. Her Majesty's Advocate underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that special defences like self-defence are only upheld when incontrovertible evidence supports their validity. By affirming the trial judge's exclusion of the self-defence plea, the court highlighted the importance of meeting all necessary legal criteria and the pivotal role of robust evidence in safeguarding just convictions. This judgment serves as a critical reference point for future cases involving special defences, reinforcing the legal standards required for their successful application.