Self-defence and defence of another

Overview

Self-defence and defence of others are fundamental doctrines in criminal law that justify actions otherwise deemed criminal when used to protect oneself or another. These defences are grounded in necessity and proportionality, requiring a critical examination of the circumstances surrounding each case. This article examines the legal principles, statutory provisions, and key case law that define self-defence and defence of others, providing a comprehensive understanding of their application in law.

Fundamental Principles

Self-defence

The doctrine of self-defence permits individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves from immediate danger. It rests on two main principles:

1. Necessity: Force may be used when urgently needed to prevent an attack. As established in R v Beckford [1988], a person may act on a genuine belief that they are under threat, even if that belief is mistaken.

2. Proportionality: The force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. This means the response should not be excessive in relation to the harm anticipated. As noted in R v Palmer [1971], the law recognizes that in the heat of the moment, a person cannot precisely weigh the exact amount of defensive action needed.

These principles are assessed from the standpoint of the person defending themselves, taking into account the circumstances they perceived at the time.

Defence of Another

This doctrine allows a person to use force to protect someone else who is under threat. The same principles of necessity and proportionality apply:

• The defender must honestly believe that it is necessary to intervene.
• The amount of force used should be reasonable and proportionate to the threat perceived.

For example, if a bystander witnesses someone being attacked in a public place, they may step in to defend the victim, provided their actions are necessary and proportionate to the situation.

Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretation

Statutory Basis

While self-defence and defence of others are rooted in common law, certain statutes provide additional guidance:

• Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967: Allows for the use of reasonable force in the prevention of crime or making a lawful arrest.
• Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: Offers statutory clarification on aspects of self-defence, including the reasonableness of force used.

These statutes complement the common law principles and assist in interpreting the circumstances under which force is considered lawful.

Key Case Law

Understanding essential cases helps illustrate how these principles are applied:

1. R v Beckford [1988]

   • Established that a person may use force in self-defence if they honestly believe they are in imminent danger, even if that belief is mistaken.

2. R v Palmer [1971]

   • Recognized that precise measurement of necessary force isn't expected in the heat of the moment; individuals may not be able to weigh the exact amount needed for defence.

3. R v Gladstone Williams [1984]

   • Reinforced that a genuine belief in the necessity of force justifies self-defence, regardless of whether the belief is reasonable, as long as it is honestly held.

4. R v Owino [1996]

   • Confirmed that both the belief in the necessity of force and the reasonableness of the force used are to be assessed by the jury from the defendant's viewpoint.

Elements of the Defence

Imminence of Threat

The danger requiring defensive action must be imminent, meaning it is perceived as about to happen. However, the threat does not have to be immediate in the strictest sense. In R v Beckford [1988], the court recognized that a person doesn't have to wait until they are attacked before defending themselves. If they reasonably believe an attack is imminent, they may act preemptively.

For instance, if someone aggressively approaches with a raised fist, one need not wait to be struck before taking defensive action.

No Duty to Retreat

There is no absolute legal duty to retreat from a threatening situation before resorting to self-defence. However, evidence that a person attempted to withdraw or avoid the confrontation may support the reasonableness of their actions. In R v Bird [1985], the court acknowledged that while retreating can demonstrate an unwillingness to fight, failure to do so does not necessarily negate the defence.

Mistaken Belief

A genuine belief in the need to use force can justify self-defence, even if that belief is mistaken. As established in R v Gladstone Williams [1984], it's the honesty of the belief that matters, not its accuracy. However, if the mistaken belief arises from voluntary intoxication, the defence is not available, as held in R v O'Grady [1987].

Complex Scenarios and Advanced Considerations

Preemptive Strikes

Acting before an attack occurs can be permissible when the threat is credible and imminent. The law recognizes that a person need not wait to be assaulted before defending themselves. In R v Deana [1998], it was accepted that preemptive action is lawful under such circumstances.

Consider a situation where someone is confronted by an individual making threats and reaching for what appears to be a weapon. The potential victim may take defensive action to prevent the anticipated attack.

Use of Weapons

The use of weapons in self-defence requires careful consideration. While individuals may use force to protect themselves, the force must still be necessary and proportionate. In R v Malnik [1989], it was held that carrying a weapon for self-defence may not be justified if it encourages confrontation or escalates the risk of violence.

For example, keeping a reasonable object like a walking stick for protection might be acceptable, but carrying a concealed firearm without a legitimate reason could be viewed as excessive and unjustified.

Defence of Property

Although primarily focused on personal safety, self-defence can extend to the protection of property, but the force used must be reasonable. In R v Hussey (1924), it was determined that lethal force cannot be justified solely for defending property.

For instance, a shop owner may use reasonable force to prevent theft or damage to their premises but cannot inflict serious harm on a fleeing shoplifter who poses no immediate threat.

Excessive Force

Using more force than necessary undermines the legitimacy of the defence. If the force is excessive, the individual may be held criminally liable. In R v Clegg [1995], a soldier who fired at a vehicle after it had passed him was found to have used excessive force because the immediate threat had ceased.

For example, if an assailant is incapacitated or retreating, continuing to apply force would likely be considered excessive and unlawful.

Practical Application: Case Analysis

Scenario:

Alex is walking home late at night when he notices two people following him closely. Feeling uneasy, he glances back and sees one of them reaching into their jacket. Fearing they might be armed and about to attack, Alex swings his heavy backpack at them, striking the person and causing injury. It turns out the individual was simply reaching for their phone.

Analysis:

1. Necessity: Did Alex genuinely believe he was in imminent danger? Given the circumstances—a deserted street, being followed late at night, and observing someone reach into their jacket—his belief could be deemed honest.

2. Proportionality: Was swinging the backpack a reasonable response? Considering Alex feared an immediate attack, using a non-lethal object like a backpack may be seen as proportionate.

3. Mistaken Belief: Although Alex was mistaken about the threat, under R v Gladstone Williams [1984], a genuine belief in the need for self-defence can justify his actions.

4. Imminence: The perceived threat was imminent, as Alex believed an attack was about to occur.

Conclusion: Based on these factors, Alex may be able to rely on self-defence, as his actions were grounded in an honest and reasonable belief in the necessity to protect himself.

Conclusion

At the core of self-defence and defence of others in criminal law lies the complex interplay between a defendant's genuine belief in the necessity of force and the objective requirement of proportionality. Cases like R v Beckford [1988] highlight that even preemptive actions are permissible if a person honestly believes an attack is imminent. This subjective belief must align with an assessment of whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances, as established in R v Palmer [1971].

The complexity intensifies when considering mistaken beliefs and excessive force. R v Gladstone Williams [1984] demonstrates that an honest but mistaken belief can still justify self-defence, whereas R v Clegg [1995] illustrates that excessive force negates the defence, regardless of perceived threats.

These principles collectively define the legal boundaries of self-defence and defence of others. The doctrines require a careful application of statutory provisions, such as Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, alongside judicial interpretations. Each case demands meticulous evaluation of the facts to ascertain whether the defensive actions align with the legal justifications established in criminal law.