Self defence is still as you say, completely legal.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in_England_and_Wales#Tr...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_King...
The right to remain silent in the US (and previously in the UK) means that your silence cannot be presented as evidence of guilt in court. In the UK, such evidence may be presented and the the jury is instructed that they may make negative inferences from your refusal to speak with the police.
The right to a jury trial has been limited by changes that allow juries to reach majority (10-2) verdicts and by removing the right to a jury trial in cases where the government suspects jury tampering.
I'm not trying to get into a debate about guns. But any list of rights no longer enjoyed by Englishmen wouldn't be complete without mentioning it. Whether it's for the better or worse is another issue.
He used an illegally held weapon to 'defend his property'. He lay in wait for the burglars and shot at them in the dark and again shot at them (killing one) as they attempted to flee.
How in any world is that self-defence? As they were fleeing he was under no threat and therefore such deadly force is completely unreasonable and no longer being used in defence of anything anyway.
Unless you want to live in a world where people are shot dead for accidentally wandering on to another persons land the concept of necessary and reasonable force is a fair one.
So, maybe a blanket law saying you can cause essentially unlimited harm or death to anyone entering your property without your consent isn't such a good idea? There are at least two main legal foundations in England for what we casually refer to as a right to self defence, but both of them rely on a test of reasonableness if force is used. Also, it's already acknowledged that someone's idea of what seems reasonable won't be perfect if, say, they are half-awake at 3am and find an intruder standing in the dark outside their child's bedroom, and so there is already an element of benefit of the doubt being given in such situations. Going beyond that would have to be based on either an argument that the current law isn't clear enough to make someone confident to act reasonably (which is a legitimate concern) or an argument that we want to legitimise the deliberate use of grossly excessive force (which, IMHO, is not).
Well, if you're going back that far as to consider carrying guns as a lost right, what about the vote for women? That's been gained. As has welfare. Occupational health and safety. Universal healthcare. The right to be protected by a professional police force (and emergency services in general). The abolition of slavery. Abolition of debtors prisons. Legalisation of homosexuality. Environmental protections. There are a shitload of legal rights gained since the era of English self-arming.
Cherry-picking rights from yesteryear is a crappy way to go about complaining of an issue. Guns aren't a legal mechanism; they don't belong on a list of legal processes.
This one's active in Australia (or at least the east coast of Australia). There was specific legislation apparently made to combat "biker gangs".
http://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-right-to-remain-silent/
It also mentions the UK. Specifically:
According to the law, for a serious indictable offence, unfavourable inferences (once not allowed) may be drawn if a defendant didn’t mention something which:
* he or she could reasonably have been expected to mention in the circumstances; and
* is relied on by the defence in the proceeding
So... not exactly great... but not world-ending either. Basically if the police question you about where you were, and you have a lawyer with you, and you say you don't remember - you can't then go to court and say, "Well actually I was at XYZ" because that'll be used against you.
I'm not sure exactly how that pans out in real life though. It is not unexpected that you'd lose your memory when in a high pressure situation like that.
I don't think that's a proper reading of the change. What you're describing was never protected by the right to remain silent. The right to remain silent applies to just that, silence. You changing your story is and has been admissible evidence in all jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, the jury selection process in the US is, in my eyes, a complete distortion of the whole concept.
Shooting someone in the back whilst they're running away doesn't constitute self-defence.
* Free speech (see prohibitions on "hate speech" and "extremism")
* The right to remain silent (your silence can be used as evidence of guilt in court)
* The right to a jury trial (the UK now allows majority, 10-2, verdicts. The right to a jury trial can also be removed in cases where the government suspects jury tampering.)
* Habeas Corpus (up to 14 days detention without charge of terrorism suspects. it was 28 days until 2011)
* The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure (in many situations the standard of evidence has been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" and is increasingly at the discretion of police/government instead of courts)
* The prohibition on double jeopardy (the government can petition for a new trial after acquittal if substantial new evidence comes to light)
* The exclusion of illegally gathered evidence from court (the UK never had an exclusionary principle)
* The right to self-defense (there is no castle doctrine in the UK. In every US state except Vermont, you can use lethal force with impunity against an intruder to your home. See the UK case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for shooting robbers who were in his home)
* The right to assemble
* The right to keep arms (I realize this crowd may not be a fan of this right, but nevertheless it used to be a right Englishmen and Americans both enjoyed)