Criminal Law - Defences: Self Defence

Focus on Defences (Topics 6 and 7) for Assessment 2.
Assessment 2 is an open book online exam with a problem question (1,000 words). It will cover intoxication and self-defence.
Theft and Fraud are relevant only for 30-credit students, assessed via a short problem question (500 words).

Weeks 1-3: Introduction to Semester 2, Intoxication, Self Defence.
Weeks 4-5: Theft (30 credits only).
Weeks 6-7: Fraud (30 credits only).
Weeks 8-9: Assessment Preparation (30 credits only).
Tutorials focus on answering problem questions and defences. There will be peer and tutor feedback on draft plans.

Section B will be assessed by a problem question at the end of the course – 1,000 words in total.
The problem question on intoxication/self -defence
Draft Plan Requirements (up to 350 words):
- Bullet point form.
- Structure of your answer (introduction, main body, conclusion).
- Annotations explaining key points.
- Relevant cases applied to the facts.
- Focus on structure.

The equation: Actus Reus + Mens Rea - Defence = Crime
Types of Defences:
- General Defences (e.g., self-defence).
- Capacity Defences (e.g., insanity).
- Special Defences.

Justifications: The defendant admits responsibility but claims the action was not wrong because it was justified (e.g., self-defence).
Excuses: The defendant admits the action was wrong but claims they should not be held criminally liable due to mitigating circumstances (e.g., duress).
Justification negates the actus reus, rendering it not wrongful.
Excuse does not negate the actus reus but argues for excusing the conduct.
Self-defence is a justification. Duress is an excuse.
Duress will not be covered in the assessment; the focus is on self-defence and intoxication.

John Locke (1632-1704): Every person has a property in their own person, and the labor of their body is their own.
Defences in law enable you to invoke ‘property rights’ over your body, allowing you to defend yourself and your property.
Glanville Williams: Homicide in self-defence initially needed a pardon but later resulted in acquittal.
Thomas Hobbes saw self-defence as an ‘inalienable right’.
Self-defence appeared in English common law in Semayne’s Case (1604), affirming the right to defend oneself in one's home.
Alan Norrie: Self-defence is one of the oldest and most problematic legal categories.
Three forms of self-defence in English and Welsh law each with specific criteria need to be understood according to legislation and case law.

Glanville Williams: Self-defence is an excuse for any crime against the person or property within limits.
Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130: A defendant can use reasonable force to protect themselves, others, and their property.
Palmer v R [1971] AC 814: An attacked person may defend themselves with what is reasonably necessary, depending on the specific facts and circumstances.

Common law
Criminal Justice Act 1967, section 3
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76; as amended by Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s 148 and Crime and Courts Act 2013 s43

Private Defence: Developed at common law, allowing force to protect oneself or another from harm, or to protect property.
Public Defence: Set out by Criminal Justice Act 1967, s3, allowing force to prevent a crime or assist lawful arrest.
Integrated through case law and now under section 76(2) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Criminal Law Act 1967, section 3:
- Allows reasonable force to prevent crime or assist in lawful arrest.
R v Owino [1996] 2 Cr App R 128: Self-defence must be in response to imminent danger.
Beckford v R [1988] AC 130: The force used must be reasonable.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76(3):
- Reasonableness of force is based on the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be (Palmer v R).
- Response must be proportionate (e.g., not using a knife against fists).
R v Cousins [1982] 2 All ER 115: Common law defence extends to preventing attacks on others, especially family.

Describes the situation needed to justify using the defence.
The defendant must believe that circumstances necessitate force.
Subjective test: based on the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Gladstone Williams [1987] 3 All ER 411
Beckford v R [1987] UKPC
A mistake of observation (misreading the situation) needs only be honest, not reasonable.

Describes what you can lawfully do once the trigger situation has arisen.
The amount of force used must be reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Objective test: It is for the jury to decide what was reasonable.
Palmer v R [1971] AC 814

A mistake of judgement (correctly identifying the need for force but overestimating the necessary amount) must be both honest and reasonable.
Jury must consider the defendant's position, stresses, and time constraints, avoiding undue strictness.
Objective test with a subjective element.
R v Owino [1996] 2 Cr App R 128: Force must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant subjectively believes them to be.
Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 [PC]: A person defending themselves cannot precisely measure necessary defensive action in a moment of anguish.
R v Martin (Anthony) [2002] Crim LR 136: The defence is denied if the force is unreasonable (e.g., shooting a fleeing burglar in the back).

Confirms the common law position regarding the trigger.
Section 76 (6): Force is unreasonable if disproportionate to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Section 76 (7): When deciding reasonableness, consider that a person acting legitimately may not be able to measure necessary action precisely, and honesty and instinct are strong evidence of reasonable action.
R v K; R v M [2010] EWCA Crim 2514
- Does not alter the long-standing law.
- States basic principles but does not exhaustively state the law of self-defence.
Section 76; as amended by Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 s 148 and Crime and Courts Act 2013 s43
- (6A): The possibility of retreat is a factor, not a duty.
- (5A): In householder cases, force is unreasonable if grossly disproportionate.

(5A) Force is not reasonable if grossly disproportionate.
Strengthens the law for householders defending themselves or others from intruders; disproportionate force can be reasonable if not grossly disproportionate.
R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin)
- Disproportionate force can be found reasonable but is not mandated.
R v Ray [2017] EWCA Crim 1391
- Upheld Collins: Disproportionate force is always unreasonable for non-householders but not determinative of reasonableness for householders.

Demonstrate knowledge of self-defence law:
- Sources of law.
- The trigger.
- The response.
Draw on relevant case law, especially when assessing the reasonableness of force.
Conclude whether the defendant can rely on self-defence based on the facts provided. Consider applicable cases.

Test one: The trigger
- The defendant must believe that the circumstances render it necessary for them to use force.
Test two: The response
- The force used must have been objectively reasonable on the facts as the defendant subjectively believed them to be.