UNIT 3: SELF DEFENCE REVISION NOTES

Self defence

-          This is a common law defence

-          It covers protecting yourself and another from harm

-          Can be split into public defence which is clarified by statute, and private defence which is based on common law and clarified by statute

Main questions we ask

1.     Was there an imminent threat

2.     Was reasonable force used in (sane) D’s circumstances?

Public defence

According to s3 of The Criminal Law Act 1967, you can act in public defence: “A person may use any such force that is reasonable in the circumstances, in the prevention of  crime”

R v Renouf – appealed since he was assisting the “lawful arrest of offenders” and the s3 defence was not put to the jury.

Private defence

Imminent threat

S 6A of the CJAIA 2008 states that a person not under any duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose, but the possibility the person could have retreated will be considered when deciding if the force was necessary.

R v Hussain & Others – The force was not imminent since the attacker was running away

Malnik v DPP – There was no imminent threat and the defendant had created a dangerous situation by looking for the man

Attorney general no.2 – the exigency of the circumstance (riots) meant that he couldn’t be convicted since his pre-emptive method of making petrol bombs was warranted

R v Keane – no imminent threat due to the fact that this did not occur: violence offered by the victim was so out of proportion to what the original aggressor did that in effect the roles were reversed.

Reasonable in the circumstances that sane D believed them to be?

S76(3) states “ reasonable in the circumstances… as D believed them to be”

R v Owino – his actions were judged objectively and deemed too extreme, despite his subjective perception of events

R  v Oye – couldn’t rely on the defence since his psychiatric characteristics (insane) could not be brought into account on the issue of whether the degree of force was reasonable

Mistake as to threat?

Where D makes a genuine mistake, the jury have to decided whether force was necessary in the circumstances that he believed them to be76(3)AND under s76(4) they also have to consider if D’s mistake as to threat was genuine.

 R v Williams  - considering the defendants perception of events, his response was a reasonable one

Mistake due to intoxication

S76(5) states that D cannot rely on a mistaken belief if that mistake is made due to him being voluntarily intoxicated – R v O’grady

Degree of force

The amount of force which can be used in self defence states in 76(7) that “a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of necessary action” e.g. stress

R v Clegg - the force had been excessive especially as there was no evidence that he believed the car to contain terrorists. Excessive force provides no defence.

Householder cases?

S.43 Crime and Courts Act 2013 If V is or is believed to be a trespasser in V’s dwelling then any force that is “not grossly disproportionate” is considered reasonable.