Royaume-Uni & the Skeleton in the Cupboard

[Tramp]

Honnêtement - a-t-on les éléments pour décider dans un cas ou l’autre ? C’est passé devant un jury.  
 

Je suis d’accord qu’une tentative de viol justifie la légitime défense létale. J’ai rien lu d’autre que les résumés de Marlenus, mais on peut quand même donner le bénéfice du doute à la cour. 
 

PS : je pense que la légitime défense létale est justifiée dans beaucoup d’agressions. 

[Jensen]

La raison du juge pour refuser la légitime défense, relayée par the guardian:

Quote

Sentencing her at Cambridge crown court in 2019, Judge Farrell QC told Ogonowska that Jaskiewicz “undoubtedly touched you sexually and was violent to you shortly before he was killed”. But he said it did not qualify as self-defence because Ogonowska, who he accepted suffered from some mental disability and had experienced previous trauma, had taken a knife to the scene.

 

[Alchimi]

C'est la responsabilité de porter une arme létale et de s'en servir a priori sans avertissement ni proportionnalité de la riposte.

[Jensen]

42 minutes ago, Alchimi said:

ni proportionnalité de la riposte

Donc tu es d'avis que prévenir un viol ne justifie pas un homicide?

 

42 minutes ago, Alchimi said:

sans avertissement

ah bas oui, lui dire qu'elle avait un couteau ça aurait été vraiment malin. C'est pas comme si un homme moyen pouvait immobilier les bras d'une femme sans effort, hein.

 

J'entends l'argument de Tramp qui est qu'il nous manque peut-être des détails qui changeraient la donne (même si je serait moi-même moins généreux envers la justice anglaise), mais l'argument "elle n'avait qu'à se laisser violer", j'ai du mal.

[Alchimi]

 

 

Aussi dit du

 

 

[Liber Pater]

Après, comment prouve-t-elle qu'il allait effectivement la violer ? La charge de la preuve lui incombe, et il se peut qu'elle n'ait pas su le démontrer. Je peux tout aussi bien aller planter quelqu'un et me dédouaner en disant qu'il allait me violer...

[Jensen]

17 minutes ago, Alchimi said:

 

 

 

Ben il va falloir expliquer ce que tu entend par "proportionnalité de la riposte", parce que en toute sincérité je ne vois pas comment l'interpréter différemment.

 

6 minutes ago, Liber Pater said:

Après, comment prouve-t-elle qu'il allait effectivement la violer ? La charge de la preuve lui incombe, et il se peut qu'elle n'ait pas su le démontrer. Je peux tout aussi bien aller planter quelqu'un et me dédouaner en disant qu'il allait me violer...

C'est généralement un problème, oui, mais ici le juge qui l'a condamné admet que le viol était réel.

[Marlenus]

27 minutes ago, Liber Pater said:

Après, comment prouve-t-elle qu'il allait effectivement la violer ? La charge de la preuve lui incombe, et il se peut qu'elle n'ait pas su le démontrer. Je peux tout aussi bien aller planter quelqu'un et me dédouaner en disant qu'il allait me violer...

Pour le coup il y avait 2 témoins avec elles qui ont corroboré son récit.

C'était un groupe de 4 avec un qui a vrillé sous l'effet de l'alcool.

[GilliB]

J'ai l'impression que le problème pour le juge est le port d'armes qui est sans doute illégal au UK.

Imaginons que l'arme ait été un revolver, se balader avec et s'en servir pour repousser un agresseur sera mal vu par une justice qui a beaucoup de mal avec la légitime défense.

Si elle avait été agressée dans une cuisine et aurait utilisé un couteau qui se trouvait là, c'était plus plaidable.

PS je suis pour la légitime défense, mais on sait que l'état n'aime pas cela.

[Hugh]

Bien, l'affaire:

 

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2025/604?court=ewca%2Fcrim&party=Ogonowska

 

Citation

On 20 October 2018, the applicant went out to a nightclub in Peterborough with her friends, Zofie Fedakova and her boyfriend Peter Csisco, the deceased and her mother, who left the nightclub early and plays no further part in the story. Before going to the nightclub, the applicant, the deceased and the two friends attended the applicant’s house where they drank alcohol before heading out. Whilst at the nightclub, the applicant saw an ex-boyfriend who wanted to take her home. The applicant argued with him and was not allowed to re-enter the club. As a result, Zofie, Peter and the deceased also left the club and walked to where the deceased’s car was parked.

 

The deceased drove. The applicant sat in the front passenger seat. Peter and Zofie sat in the back, with Zofie behind the driver’s seat. Sometime after their journey began, the deceased began to drive at an excessive speed, which caused the passengers to panic. The applicant asked him to slow down and eventually, after the applicant began to cry, the deceased slowed down and the car came to a stop at Oakdale Avenue. The applicant got out of the car and ran off. The deceased chased after her. Zofie gave evidence that she saw the deceased grab the applicant by the throat and pull the applicant to the ground. She noticed that the deceased appeared to be fastening his trousers and it occurred to her that the deceased wanted to sexually assault the applicant due to the fact his hand was placed on the zip of his trousers and because he had thrown the applicant on her back on the floor. She and Peter got out of the car and told the deceased to calm down and stop fighting. Things calmed down and they all got back in the car, with the applicant once more getting into the front passenger seat. Before getting in the car, the applicant told Zofie that the deceased had said that he wanted to separate the two women from Peter so that the deceased and his friends could play with them. The deceased laughed when he heard the allegation. Zofie gave evidence that she did not see or hear what was happening immediately before the stabbing because she was speaking to Peter in the back.

 

 

At trial it was the applicant’s case that Zofie had given her the knife for her protection shortly before she had used it, which Zofie denied. The prosecution case was that the applicant had brought the knife with her when they left her home. The Jury were appropriately directed about the elements of the offence of having a bladed article and, in that context, heard evidence that she had said to others on two previous occasions that she had carried knives, though this evidence was disputed by the applicant.

 

 

Zofie said that, shortly after getting back in the car, she saw the deceased place his hand inside the applicant’s top and onto the applicant’s breast and saw the applicant throw his hand away fiercely. Zofie gave evidence that she spoke to her boyfriend Peter and then noticed the deceased’s hand on the applicant’s thigh. The applicant placed her hand on top of the deceased’s hand and the next thing she was aware of was hearing a noise like someone hitting someone in the face but not the sound of a slap. (Peter, who said he was not paying much attention to what was going on in the front of the car, described it as a noise like two hands together, or something harder.) The applicant got out of the car and started to scream and run down the road shouting “Let’s go! Let’s go!”. Zofie and Peter got out of the car and followed. When they caught up with the applicant they noticed the applicant was shaking and stammering and then she showed them the bloodied knife. They were unable to calm her down. The applicant said she had stabbed the deceased.

 

The applicant’s version was that the deceased was being aggressive towards her, pushing her and calling her names. She said she was scared of him and did not know what to do. She showed him the tip of the knife, which she had concealed up the sleeve of her jacket after being given it by Zofie, so that he would think twice about hitting her again. When she showed him the knife he just laughed at her and became aggressive again. She kicked him as she wanted to get away but they had a fight during which she did lots of movements to get him away; but she did not know how she came to stab him. She was not thinking about the knife until she saw it in his chest and removed it. She described a back-handed motion with the knife protruding from her fist.

 

 

The applicant, Zofie and Peter made their way to a local supermarket where the applicant contacted her ex-boyfriend Ahmed, who arranged for a taxi to collect them and take them to his home. Zofie said the applicant put the knife in her bra. They later washed the knife together and the applicant got changed. Before arriving at Ahmed’s the applicant said that she needed to go to the police station. A second taxi was later ordered and it took the applicant from Ahmed’s house to the police station. The police station was closed, however the applicant spoke to the police over the telephone and was later arrested. At their request, she provided the knife to the police. During her arrest, the applicant showed the police the motion which was used to stab the deceased. The body-worn footage of that was shown to the jury.

 

The deceased died of a single wound to the chest which passed through the heart and out again. The pathologist gave evidence that at least moderate force would have been used and agreed that a backhanded motion, as seen in the body-worn footage, could have caused the injury and that one possible explanation could have been down to the movement of the parties involved, with the deceased lunging towards the applicant.

 

C'est long, mais le lien ci-dessus est là pour ceux qui veulent tout vérifier. Les faits décrits sont différents du reportage, je pense. Mais l'affaire judiciaire  est plus éclairante.

[Alchimi]

Ce bordel...