So conversely, if an independant jury unanimously believe a defendant is 'guilty', then the Judge can overule?

Can the Judge acquit?

In that case would this not go to a retrial?

I guess you have to ask the question then what is the role of the Judge and the Jury in a court.

The Jury I guess are supposedly Lay People (can say a solicitor act as a juror if selected at random?), so will need legal advice on some points in law.

The Judge I guess is the chairperson of proceedings. But if he can 'judge' a case himself, what then is the point of the jury?

Most inquests are heard without a jury, but a jury is mandatory in some cases (for example, a death in custody, or following police contact), and optional in other cases. A Coroner has power to stop a jury returning a verdict which would inevitably be set aside on a judicial review because it could not be sustainable on the facts available. In effect, the Coroner can order the jury not to return a verdict which would be, legally, perverse,

Inquests do not apportion blame, they simply investigate how a death occurred.

In a trial, where criminal liability is at issue, the Judge can instruct the jury not to convict perversely, but he cannot prevent a perverse acquittal.

These rule reflect the public policies against repeated inquests, and against wrongful convictions.

Depends on if the person seeking to rely upon self defence felt threatened... IF someone said "I'm going to kick your f***ng head in" but left, and an hour later he came strolling over at you with a face like thunder and his fists up......... You might reasonably suspect he's going to make good his threat, and defend yourself before being attacked.

No, the apprehension of violence can be sufficient.

Only if you are genuinely in fear of immediate violence to yourself or another. Your response must be proportionate to the perceived threat.

The answer is that it all depends on the evidence. As Lord Steyn said a few years ago, in law, as in life, context is everything. Self defence is a positive defence, but does not place a formal burden of proof upon the person who asserts it in court. In a prosecution, it would be for the Crown to prove that the defendant did not act on the basis of a subject apprehension of violence. Note that the test is subjective and not objective, but that would not excuse an irrationally sensitive response to a word or a look. In practice, a defendant would have to adduce at least some evidence of the context tohave a chance of succeeding in the defence.

The law of self defence favours the preservation of civil peace if possible, so , in the UK at any rate, it imposes a duty to retreat if retreat is possible. In the situation which you describe, if you had struck a blow when the perceived antagonist was merely adopting a fighty posture, you might have had difficulty with a self defence plea.

Exactly.

And the interesting point raised above is something that many people dont' realise - you can act to prevent an attack on someone else.

My brother and I once intervened as we were driving past a rough pub in Hackney, pulling a bloke from the middle of a crowd who were beating him severely with pool cues. We may perhaps have saved the man from death or brain injury. We threw him in the back of my car and sped off to a nearby A and E. The bloke left, against medical advice, as soon as he regained consciousness. My brother and I went to the police station to report the incident, and were grilled for hours, as the police could not seem to accept that we had no prior involvement in the fracas. Our shirts were soaked with the guy's blood, and it took a while to get the blood out of the cloth seats in my car. Hey ho, I am still glad that we acted.

Isn't it called Jury Nullification?