Help NCFP – Use AMAZON

We get 4% from Amazon so when ordering CLICK BELOW

  

Cheapest.co.uk


ukcheapest

North Cyprus Law | Assault in Civil Law in the TRNC

North Cyprus Law | Assault in Civil Law in the TRNCNorth Cyprus Law | Assault in Civil Law in the TRNC

Assault is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment at times according to the TRNC Criminal code but is it also a civil wrong (tort) and can you sue and be compensated because of it? Below I have put down the general rules and definitions in Civil Law on this subject but I must add that Criminal Law does have similar rules or authorities to back up what has been written below but it is slightly different and/or expressed in different words.

What is the definition of assault in Civil Law in the TRNC?

Assault consists of intentionally applying force of any kind whether by way of striking, touching, moving, or otherwise, to the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without his/her consent, or with his/her consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or attempting or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the attempt or threat causes the other to believe upon reasonable grounds that he has the present intention and ability to effect his/her purpose. The expression ‘’ applying force’’ above, includes applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause damage.

In general, if you have been assaulted and the action (assault) against you fits the definition above then you can take legal actions and file a lawsuit or in other words a case in a court of law of the TRNC against any person which has committed such a act against you and claim for compensation.

Well, what happens if you are sued or a case has been filed against you for assault at a civil court or what can be the possible defences for such a lawsuit?

In any action brought in respect of any assault it is a defence ;

a) that the defendant acted for the protection of him/her self or another person against an unlawful use of force by the plaintiff, and that in so acting he did no more than was reasonably necessary for that purpose and the damage caused to the plaintiff by the assault was not disproportionate to the damage sought to be avoided:

b) that the defendant being the occupier of any IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, or acting under the authority of such occupier, used a reasonable degree of FORCE in order to PREVENT the plaintiff ( this might be a bank, builder, landowner or contractor or people working for them etc) from UNLAWFULLY ENTERING UPON SUCH IMMOVABLE PROPERTY or to eject the plaintiff there from after he had unlawfully entered or remained thereupon:

Provided that,

1) if the plaintiff did not enter, or attempt to enter, upon such immovable property by force, the defendant shall have requested the plaintiff to refrain from entering upon, or, having entered upon, to depart from, such immovable property, and shall have given the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity of peaceably complying with his request:

2) the force used shall amount to nothing more than forcible prevention or removal and shall, except where the plaintiff seeks to enter by the means of a forcible felony, not include beating, wounding or other physical injury

c) the defendant, being entitled to the possession of any movable property, used a reasonable degree of force in order to defend his possession thereof, or if the plaintiff has wrongfully taken or detained such movable property from him/her, the defendant used a reasonable degree of force to retake possession thereof from the plaintiff:

Provided that;

1) if the plaintiff did not take or attempt to take such movable property by force, the defendant shall have requested the plaintiff to refrain from taking, or, having taken, to restore to the defendant, such movable property, and shall have given the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity of peaceably complying with his request;

2) the force used shall amount to nothing more that forcible prevention or retaking and shall not include beating, wounding or other physical injury;

d) that the defendant was acting in the execution of or lawfully assisting in the execution of any warrant, committal, order of commitment or writ of attachment issued by any court or other lawful authority having jurisdiction thereto, provided that the act complained of was authorised by such warrant, committal, order of commitment or writ of attachment and notwithstanding any defect in or in the issue of such warrant, committal, order of commitment or writ of attachment:

e) that the plaintiff was of unsound mind or was suffering from infirmity of mind or body and that the force used was, or appeared to be, reasonably necessary for his/her own protection or fort hat of other persons and was exercised in good faith and without malice:

f) that the plaintiff and defendant were both members of the TRNC armed forces and that the defendant acted under any Act or Law applicable to such forces;

g) that the defendant was the parent, guardian or schoolmaster of the plaintiff or other person whose relationship to the plaintiff was similar to that of his/her parent, guardian or schoolmaster, and administered to the plaintiff only such chastisement as was reasonably necessary fort he purpose of corruption. I must add here that ı do think that this paragraph (g) should be cancelled as soon as possible;

h) that the defendant acted in good faith for what he/she had reason to believe to be the benefit of the plaintiff but was unable before doing such act to obtain the consent of the plaintiff thereto, as the circumstances were such that it was impossible fort he plaintiff to signify his consent or for some person in lawful charge of the plaintiff to consent on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant had reason to believe that it was fort he benefit of the plaintiff that he should not delay in doing such act.

I must add that everybody can file a case into a court of law in the TRNC but this doesn’t mean that every case shall be won and that is for the Court or Judge (s) to decide. That’s why the Courts are there…you cant win if you don’t fight and fight in the right way… and that’s why Advocates are here…

Legal Eagle

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share

Comments are closed.