Self defense

R v Williams (Gladstone)

Lord Lane CJ Established

D should be judged based on their honest belief, even if that belief was mistaken and unreasonable.

Put into Statute through s76(3-4) CJIA 2008

Reinforced in Beckford

Where is Self defence Governed and Defined

Defined by Common law

Governed by the s76 CJIA 2008 + s3 CLA 1967 + s43 C+CA 2013

(s43 Crime and Courts Act 2013 - Added Householder cases to s76(5A) CJIA)

Burden of proof

The Prosecution must prove

1. Force was not necessary

Or

2. The Degree of force was disproportionate

What is the test for Self defence

1. Did D honestly believe force was necessary (Subjective)

2. Was the force used reasonable proportionate (Objective)

s76 (5A) CJIA 2008

Sets out Householder Cases

Amended by s43 Crime and Courts Act 2013 to allow Disproportionate force up until Grossly Disproportionate force

Mitigating factors the jury can consider when considering if D acted reasonably in householder cases

Presence of vulnerable people

Age

Time of day

The shock of coming across an intruder in the house

DELETE TS

What is the test for Self-Defence in householder cases

Which case confirmed this

1. Was the Degree of Force used Grossly Disproportionate in the circumstances as they believed them to be

2. Was the Degree of Force D used Reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be

Confirmed in R v Ray

s3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967

Allows Self Defence to be used in the Prevention of Crime/Assisting in Lawful Arrest

R v Palmer

Lord Parker

Sets out how reasonable force be assessed

- A person being attacked should not be expected to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action

- If it is decided that D did what he honestly thought was necessary then that is strong evidence that only reasonable force was used.

This is now statute in S76 (7) CJIA 2008

R v Scarlett

If D genuinely believed the degree of force was reasonable in the circumstance, then self-defence could succeed

Overruled by Owino

D believed he was about to be struck by a drunk man and so removed him from his premises. The drunk man then fell backwards down a flight of stairs, struck his head and died.

R v Owino

Established current test

D should be judged on what he honestly believed circumstances to be but Objectively whether force used was reasonable

Overruled decision in R v Scarlett

s76 (5A)

Degree of Force cannot be grossly disproportionate in householder cases

What must be there to be classified as a Householder Case

1. The force must be used by D while in or partly in a building that is a dwelling

2. D must not be a trespasser

3. D must have believed V to be a trespasser

Clegg

If force is used after all danger is over, it is excessive and the defence is not available

Reinforced in R v Martin

A car came towards Clegg at speed. One of the soldiers shouted for it to stop but it did not. Clegg fired 3 shots and 1 as the car passed him. The final shot hit a passenger and killed he

R v Hussain

Unlikely force to be necessary when the attack is over and the attacker is fleeing

Held hostage by intruders, managed to escape and made V flee the house. Hussain caught V and Inflicted serious injury.

What 5 things can you defend

1. Yourself

2. Someone else

3. Your property

4. Preventing a crime

5. Assisting in lawful arrest

R v Bird

It is not necessary to withdraw from an attack or show an unwillingness to fight/retreat

However showing an unwillingness to fight is good evidence Ds actions were reasonable

LASPOA 2012 Amended this decision into s76(6A) CJIA 2008

Section 76(6A) CJIA 2008 Amended by LASPOA 2012

Put decision from R v Bird into statute

A person is not under duty to retreat, but the possibility to retreat is to be considered in deciding whether the degree of force was necessary

Pre-emptive strike cases

AG Ref No 2 of 1983 - Preparation for self-defence can be lawful if the threat is imminent and the force used is reasonable.

R v Bird - A person is not under duty to retreat, but the possibility to retreat is to be considered in deciding whether the degree of force was necessary

R v Beckford - Pre-emptive strike can be sufficient if D honestly and genuinely believes that they (or someone else) are about to be attacked.

• D reasonableness of force must be judged on his mistaken belief of the facts

AG Ref (No 2 of 1983)

Preparation for self-defence can be lawful if the threat is imminent + force used is reasonable

Ds shop had been attacked by rioters previously. Fearing further attacks he made petrol bombs.

R v Hussey

Held to be lawful to kill a man who disposes him of his home

Landlords were trying to break down his door to unlawfully evict him. He shot a gun through the door and wounded one of them.

R v Beckford

D reasonableness of force must be judged on his mistaken belief of the facts

Reinforced Williams (Gladstone)

D shot dead a suspect he was told was armed and dangerous. It was found the suspect was unarmed and posed no threat

R v O'Grady (1987)

Mistake Belief arising from Voluntary Intoxication could not be relied on, whatever the crime

Reinforced by O'Connor and Taj

This is stated in s76(5) CJIA

D was drunk and woke to his drunken friend hitting him, he retaliated with several blows and went back to sleep. He awoke to find his friend dead

s76(5)

Mistake Belief arising from voluntary intoxication can not be relied on

Collins v Secretary of State for Justice

• s76 (5A) allows the jury "A discretionary area of judgement in householder cases with a different emphasis to that which applied in other cases"

• This means the law Allows householders some Leeway in Assessing Reasonable Force when defending their homes

C broke into Collins house and was held in a headlock for 6 minutes until the police arrived. C suffered irreversible brain damage. Cs father brought a case of a breach of Cs right to life, but Collins was not convicted on the basis mentioned

What cannot be taken in consideration on assessing Reasonable force

1. Voluntary Intoxication - O’Grady, O’Connor

2. Disorders which affect Ds perception of the situation - Martin, Cairns, Oye

R v Martin

Cannot consider Mental Conditions causing D to Perceive Greater Danger when assessing Reasonableness of Force

Reinforced in

R v Cairns, R v Press and Thompson, R v Oye

Shot 2 burglars when they were escaping. His paranoid personality disorder caused him to mistakenly think he was in an extremely dangerous situation. COA held personality disorders cannot be taken into consideration.

R v Rashford

When D is the initial aggressor they may only use the defence if Vs response is disproportionate and Ds is not

However they can only use the defence if it was not Ds intent to give V an excuse to use serious violence

• Rashford went to victims house with a Knife, V started a fistfight but Rashford withdrew a knife and stabbed him, Making him not liable for the defence of self defence

Williams (Gladstone)

D should be judged subjectively on the reasonableness of his actions against his genuine mistaken belief, not the reality of the facts of the case

Reinforced by Beckford

R v Ray

Cannot use Grossly disproportionate force in householder cases

What 5 cases relate to householders?

What do they each establish?

1. R v Ray - You cannot use grossly disproportionate force

2. Colins v Secretary of state

3. R v Hussain - If the attack is over, force is likely to be seen as disproportionate

4. R v Martin - Condition causing D to perceive greater danger is irrelevant

5. R v Hussey - Deemed lawful to kill someone attempting to unlawfully dispose him of his home

What 2 cases relate to Mistaken Belief

Williams (Gladstone) - D must be Judged on his mistaken belief, not the reality of the situation

Reinforced by Beckford

R v Williams (2020)

Self defence does not allow force to be used to recover stolen property

Introduction

- SD is a Complete General defence defined in Common Law (Palmer) and Governed in s43 C+CA 2013, s76 CJIA 2008 and s3 CLA 1967.

- Leads to a Full Acquittal

- SD covers defending yourself, others and property + s3 CLA allows aiding in lawful arrest/prevention of a crime

- The BOP is on the prosecution to prove Force was not necessary or the Force was Disproportionate (Grossly Disproportionate for House-holder cases)