IS

AN OFFENSE?

Two school boys Sydney Australia Spark

International debate on the right to self-defend

RITCHARD GALE12 Years Old

Chifley CollegeSydney AustraliaDivorced Parents

CASEY HEYNES15 Years Old

Chifley College Sydney Australia

Years Of Being Bullied

Cell Phone Camera Video Taken by Bystander

http://www.caseyheynes.com/

The Result for The Boys

• Equal length suspensions for BOTH boys

• Video spread virally over internet and both boys will live with it over their heads for the remainder of their lives

Two Sides Of The TaleCasey Supporters Ritchard Supporters

• Didn’t start fight•Tried to block and self defend peacefully•Pushed around for years•Didn’t continue violence against Gale•Casey is the true victim

• Gale claims that Heynes had been insulting him•Two years younger•Heynes attack was over aggressive •Difficulty with parents divorce•Ritchard is the true victim

From Canadian Criminal CodeDefence of PersonSelf-defence against unprovoked assault34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is

justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in

repelling the assault is justified if(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the

violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

From Canadian Criminal CodeDefence of PersonSelf-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous

bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in

repelling the assault is justified if(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the

violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

For anyone interested in the story: all or most sources on this story are extremely biased so it would be a good Idea to check out numerous

websites. A good place to start is: http://

www.caseyheynes.com where you can find videos and articles biased

for Casey and also for Ritchard.

Casey Heynes was NOT justified in defending himself in the manner

which he did?

Casey Heynes was NOT justified in defending himself in the manner

which he did?

The school was justified in punishing both boys in the same manner?