Quarter Sessions
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836903300102 |
| Published date | 01 January 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarter
Sessions
A HUSBAND AND
WIFE
DISPUTE
ANexample of the conflict between private rights
and
public
duty occurred in the case of R. v.
Dixon,
heard on 18 October
1968 at the
Inner
London Sessions before Mr. Henry Elam, the
Deputy Chairman,
and
ajury.
Police officers,called to a disturbance by an adjoining fiat owner,
found a flat barricaded by Dagainst his wife, the defendant. D
explained to the officers
that
they
had
been separated for 2t years,
and
that
the rent book was in his name. He refused to admit her.
At this point, one of the officersinvited Dto make the first move to
eject his wife,
and
the officers would see
that
there was no breach
of the peace. Mrs. Dthreatened the officers with a hammer
and
a
screwdriver,
and
they proceeded to disarm her. She became very
violent
and
bit both officersin the arm, was thereupon arrested
and
charged later with Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and
Assault on constable.
The
defence contended
that
a wife,
and
it was agreed
that
they
were still legally married, has an inalienable right to enter the matri-
monial home unless forbidden by a Court order,
and
consequently
the husband
had
no right to exclude her. A
fortiori,
the officer, in
inviting
him
to do so, was not acting lawfully,
and
therefore any
subsequent assault on
him
could not come under s.5 Iof the Police
Act.
It
was also contended
that
the bites were at least an act of self-
defence,
and
at best were a justifiable reaction against unlawful force
and
assault against her by two police officersagainst whom she could
not normally be expected to have any adequate physical defence.
Both these submissions were upheld by the Deputy Chairman.
It
is submitted
that
while the assaults on constable were
rightly withdrawn, the issue
of
self-defence is essentially one for a
jury. However, since an acquittal in these circumstances was almost
inevitable the Deputy Chairman was no doubt justified in taking
what has been described as the "robust" view.
7
To continue reading
Request your trial