L3 UNIT 1: Civil cases and criminal cases

Text 2:

The Law Explored: naked and unarmed – but shot dead by mistake

While conducting a search of the victim’s flat, Police Constable Christopher Sherwood shot James Hastley dead, as he believed the latter was threatening him with a weapon.

As a result / Consequently / As a consequence / It ensued that, Constable Sherwood was charged with murder and tried at the Crown Court.

For his defence, Sherwood argued that he genuinely thought Hastley’s had been armed when he came at him and that he had acted in self-defence. Sherwood claimed he had made an honest mistake. His defence was successful and he was acquitted.

Hastley’s family, however, chose to bring a so-called “vindicatory” civil action for assault and battery, that is to say an action motivated by the wish to prove that a fundamental right has been infringed but not by the hope of obtaining compensation (which is usually the point of a civil action).

Although Sherwood had already been acquitted, the Court of Appeal decided a civil trial could go ahead. Indeed, the Court determined, Sherwood may have not committed a crime as he had made an honest mistake, but he might nonetheless have committed a wrong in civil law.

Whereas to convict Sherwood for murder the prosecution had to prove that the defendant’s mistake was not genuine, a defendant pleading “mistaken self-defence” in a civil case (when sued for assault) would have to convince the court that his mistake was both honest and reasonable.

This higher requirement / higher standard (i.e. reasonableness) highlights / throws light on / underlines the difference between criminal law and civil law. This also pinpoints the fact that while a criminal inquiry is mainly subjective, a civil one by comparing the defendant’s action with the way in which a “hypothetical reasonable man” would have reacted in a similar set of circumstances, is mainly objective.