​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Devlin v Armstrong (1971) CA, NI
​I. Case Identification

• Case Name: Devlin v Armstrong (1971) CA, NI
• Court: Court of Appeal, Northern Ireland

II. Factual Background

• Defendant's Actions: D urged others to build barricades and throw petrol bombs at police.
• Defendant's Justification: Claimed actions were necessary to prevent:
  • People from being assaulted
  • Property from being damaged

III. Legal Issue

• Whether the defendant's actions constituted inciting a riot, despite her claims of self-defense/prevention of harm.

IV. Holding (Decision)

• Verdict: D was guilty of inciting a riot.

V. Rationale (Reasoning)

• The court found that D did not anticipate an imminent danger.
• Key Principle articulated by MacDermott LJ:
  • Self-defense may be a valid defense if force is used to:
    • Counter an actual attack
    • Ward off or prevent an attack which was honestly and reasonably anticipated.
  • Crucial Condition: In such cases, the anticipated attack must be imminent.

VI. Key Takeaways & Principles

• Imminence Requirement for Self-Defense/Prevention: For a defense based on preventing harm to be successful, the anticipated threat must be imminent.
• Distinction between "Anticipated" and "Imminent": While an attack can be anticipated, it must also be immediately about to happen for self-defense to apply.
• Incitment to Riot: Actions that encourage violent unlawful assembly can lead to charges of inciting a riot, even if the instigator believes they are acting for a "greater good" if the threat is not imminent.