Summary
L-applikabilita` tad-difiza tal-legittima difiza tiddependi mill-ko-ezistenza ta' numru ta' kondizzjonijiet: li l-hsara mhedda tkun wahda ingusta, gravi u imminenti. Il-Profs. Anthony Mamo jirreferighal dawn il-kondizzjonijiet bhala li l-hsara mhedda trid tkun ingusta, gravi u inevitabbli. Il-ProfMamo jispjega l-kondizzjoni li the evil threatened must be . inevitable hekk :
The accused must prove that the act was done by him to avoid an evil which could not otherwise be avoided. Inother words the danger must be sudden, actual and absolute. For if the danger was anticipated with certainty, a man will not be justified who has rashly braved such danger and placed himself in the necessity of having either to suffer death or grievous injury or to inflict it. In the second place the danger must be actual: if it had already passed, it may, at best, amount to provocation or, at worst, to cold-blooded revenge, and not to legitimate defence: if it was merely apprehended, then othersteps might have been taken to avoid it. Thirdly, the danger threatened must be absolute, that is,such that, at the moment, it could not be averted by other means .. in deciding whether there was actual necessity of self-defence, the test should be subjective'. The danger against which the accused reacted should be viewed not necessarily as it was in truth and in fact, but rather as he saw it at the time.
Mela l-agent irid ikun qed jirreagixxi (ghall-aggressjoni jew minaccja minnu ga`percepita bhala ingusta u gravi) proprju biex ma jhallix il-hsara mhedda ssehh. Jigifieri s-sitwazzjoni trid tkun wahda fejn l-aggressjoni jew minaccja x'aktarx issir wahda verament inevitabbli, u mhux semplicement prezunta li hi inevitabbli. A propozitu tar-rekwizit ta' l-attwalita`, il-gurista Taljan Francesco Antolisei jghid hekk:
Il codice Zanardelli parlava di pericolo imminente', dando luogo a molte incertezze. Con la nuova formula [pericolo attuale] si e` voluto porre in rilievoche la situazione pericolosa deve esistere nel momento del fatto. Pericolo attuale e` pericolo presente. Pertanto, un pericolo meramente futuro, e cioe` la probabilita` che in seguito si verifichi una situazione pericolosa non basta; e se ne comprende la ragione, giacche` in tale caso l'aggredito ha la possibilita` di invocare efficacemente la protezione dello Stato.
F'dar-rigward tista' wkoll tinstilet similarita` ta' hsieb minn dak li ntqal minn din il-Qorti fis-sentenza taghha fl-ismijiet Ir-Repubblika ta' Malta v. Domenic Briffa moghtija fis-16 ta' Ottubru 2003 fejn giet trattata d-difiza ta' legittima difiza fil-kuntest ta' l-artikolu 224(a) tal-Kodici Kriminali:
Minaccja attwali', apparti li tfisser minaccja prezenti, tfisser ukoll, fid-dawl ta' dak li nghadaktar il fuq f'din is-sentenza, li jrid ikun beda jsir xi haga li ragonevolment u oggettivament x'aktarx iwassal ghal tali ksur, ghax anke f'sitwazzjoni simili wiehed jista' jghid li the property isbeing invaded. Mhux bizzejjed, per ezempju, il-millanterija ta' x'wiehed hu kapaci li jaghmel jewis-semplici theddid bil-kliem ta' tali tkissir; mill-banda l-ohra ma hemmx ghalfejn li jkun sar tkissir materjali (kif donnha kienet qed tifhem li kellu jkun hemm l-ewwel Qorti). Ghalhekk l-ewwel Qorti ma kenitx korretta meta nsistiet li biex tissussisti din l-ewwel linja difensjonali l-aggressur kellu jkun diga` beda jkisser (materjalment) il-bieb.
Fil-kaz in ezami jirrizulta illi kien hemm sensiela ta' incidenti li, skond l-appellant, gabuh f'sitwazzjoni fejn kellu jiddeciedi li jew inehhi l-hajja ta' Jason Azzopardi jew ihalli lil Jason Azzopardi jnehhilu hajtu. Din il-Qorti tifhemli l-appellant seta' kien imwegga' u rrabjat b'dak illi Jason Azzopardi kien ghamel lil ommu (tella'self ta' Lm90 ghal Lm1,500, taha daqqa ta' harta), seta' kien imbezza' mit-theddid li jghid li kienircieva, seta' anke kien irrabjat ghal Jason Azzopardi li kien aggredieh ftit granet qabel il-qtil.Probabbilment l-appellant hass sens ta' frustrazzjoni kbira ghall-fatt li Jason Azzopardi kien maghruf bhala bniedem krudili, vjolenti u temibbli, kif gie accettat anke mill-prosekuzzjoni, u f'ghajnejh il-gustizzja ma kinitx lehqet jew tlehhaq mieghu. Ciononostante, ic-cirkostanzi li fihom sehh il-qtil ta' Jason Azzopardi ma jirrispekkjawx ic-cirkostanzi, jew ahjar, il-kondizzjonijiet li l-ligi ul-gurisprudenza taghna jridu li jezistu biex tkun tista' tirnexxi d-difiza tal-legittima difiza. Ic-cirkostanzi f'dan il-kaz juru li meta sehh il-qtil ta' Jason Azzopardi, dan Jason Azzopardi ma kienqieghed jaghmel l-ebda aggressjoni lill-appellant. F'dak il-mument ma kien hemm l-ebda minaccja attwali, kif l-anqas il-bidu ta' minaccja, ghall-inkolumita` ta' l-appellant jew ta' haddiehor.
Simon Brown, L.J. f'R. v. Nelson [1997] Crim. L. R. 234, CA (kif citat f'Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2006 (p. 495 para. 4-376):
Every defendant, we repeat, has the rightto have his defence, whatever it may be, faithfully and accurately placed before the jury. But thatis not to say that he is entitled to have it rehearsed blandly and uncritically in the summing up.No defendant has the right to demand that the judge shall conceal from the jury such difficulties and deficiencies as are apparent in his case. Of course, the judge must remain impartial. But if common sense and reason demonstrate that a given defence is riddled with implausibilities, inconsistencies and illogicalities . there is no reason for the judge to withhold from the jury the benefit of hisown powers of logic and analysis. Why should pointing out those matters be thought to smack of partiality? To play a case straight down the middle requires only that a judge gives full and fair weight to the evidence and arguments of each side. The judge is not required to top up the case for one side so as to correct any substantial imbalance. He has no duty to cloud the merits either by obscuring the strengths of one side or the weaknesses of the other. Impartiality means no more and no lessthan that the judge shall fairly state and analyse the case for both sides. Justice moreover requires that he assists the jury to reach a logical and reasoned conclusion on the evidence.
F'Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2004 (para. D16.16, p.1484) naqraw:
"Provided he emphasises thatthe jury are entitled to ignore his opinions, the judge may comment on the evidence in a way which indicates his own views. Convictions have been upheld notwithstanding robust comments to the detriment of the defence case (e.g. O'Donnell (1917) 12 Cr App R 219, in which it was held that the judge was within his rights to tell the jury that the accused's story was a remarkable one' and contrary toprevious statements that he had made). However, the judge must not be so critical as to effectivelywithdraw the issue of guilt or innocence from the jury (Canny (1945) 30 Cr App R 143, in which a conviction was quashed because the judge repeatedly told the jury that the defence case was absurd andthat there was no foundation for defence allegations against the prosecution witnesses). It is thejudge's duty to state matters clearly, impartially and logically', and not to indulge in inappropriate sarcasm or extravagant comment (Berrada (1989) 91 Cr App R 131).
L-Imhallef li ppresjeda l-guri f'dan il-kaz ma jistax jigi kkritikat li kien parzjali ghax spjega l-ligi korrettement jewghax rrefera ghal fatti rizultanti.
