General defences - Self-defence and defence of another

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising from the use of the content on this page. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Overview

Self-defence and defending others are key aspects of criminal law, playing a vital role for SQE1 FLK2 exam candidates. These defences allow actions, typically criminal, to be justified when protecting oneself or others. Understanding these defences is essential for thorough legal analysis and exam success. This guide covers the legal principles, judicial interpretations, and practical applications.

Fundamental Principles

Self-defence

Self-defence allows the use of force to protect oneself from immediate harm. Principles include:

  1. Necessity: Force must be urgently needed to counter a threat. A genuine belief in the necessity, as noted in R v Beckford [1988], is required.

  2. Proportionality: The response must be reasonable relative to the threat, not demanding precise judgment, clarified in R v Palmer [1971].

These factors are evaluated from the defendant's viewpoint at the incident's time, acknowledging the “heat of the moment.”

Defence of Another

This involves using force to protect a third party. It mirrors self-defence principles:

  • The defender must believe intervention is necessary.
  • The force used must align with the perceived threat.

Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretation

Statutory Basis

The legal grounding is mainly common law, supported by statutes:

  • Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 allows reasonable force to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest.
  • The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Section 76, clarifies aspects of self-defence and reasonableness.

Key Case Law

  1. R v Palmer [1971]:

    • Clarified that precise measures aren’t expected during self-defence.

  2. R v Keane [2010]:

    • Confirmed self-defence hinges on an honest belief in the necessity of force.

  3. R v Gladstone Williams (1984):

    • Mistaken belief can justify self-defence, even if unreasonable.

  4. R v Owino [1996]:

    • Juries must consider both the perceived threat and response.

Elements of the Defence

Imminence of Threat

The threat must be imminent but not necessarily instant. R v Beckford [1988] supports pre-emptive action with a reasonable expectation of threat.

No Duty to Retreat

There's no absolute duty to retreat, though attempts to avoid confrontation may support reasonableness. R v Bird [1985] considers retreat in evaluating the force used.

Mistaken Belief

A genuine belief in force is valid, even if mistaken, unless due to voluntary intoxication, as in R v O’Grady [1987].

Complex Scenarios and Advanced Considerations

Preemptive Strikes

Preemptive action is allowed with credible threat concerns. R v Deana (1998) upheld preemptive force against anticipated violence.

Use of Weapons

Weapon use requires careful consideration. R v Malnik [1989] suggests its reasonableness depends on attack nature and available objects.

Defence of Property

While mainly for personal protection, self-defence can extend to property, with force needing to be proportionate. R v Hussey (1924) ruled lethal force unjustifiable for property alone.

Excessive Force

Excessive force invalidates the defence. R v Clegg [1995] examined whether excessive self-defence might reduce murder to manslaughter.

Practical Application: Case Analysis

Consider this scenario:

Alex, walking home, notices two people following. One reaches into a pocket. Fearing an attack, Alex strikes with a heavy bag, causing injury. It turns out the person was reaching for a phone.

Analysis:

  1. Necessity: Alex's belief stems from the threat perception.
  2. Proportionality: The bag as a weapon and the injury must be weighed against the perceived threat.
  3. Mistaken belief: Alex’s misinterpretation is crucial. Following R v Gladstone Williams, judgment should be based on Alex's perception.
  4. Imminence: The threat seemed real to Alex, justifying action per R v Beckford.

Defence success relies on proving Alex's genuine belief and the reasonableness of the response under the circumstances.

Conclusion

Understanding self-defence and defence of others is vital for SQE1 FLK2 exam success. These defences involve:

  1. Necessity and proportionality principles.
  2. Evaluating the defendant’s perception and response reasonableness.
  3. Mistaken but genuine beliefs.
  4. Justification for preemptive action with credible threat.
  5. Careful consideration of weapon use and property defence.
  6. Guidance from case law on various scenarios.

Mastering these defences prepares students for challenging exam questions and equips them with analysis skills for legal practice.