SB: GD: Self-defence

Question 1

Define self-defence

Answer 1

Self-defence is a complete defence and covers situations where one may have to defend oneself, another or to prevent a serious crime. (S3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967)

Question 2

When can self-defence be used?

Answer 2

Self-defence can be used when committing non-fatal offences but can also be used in cases of murder and property offences.

Question 3

When is it necessary to use force?

Answer 3

S76(1)b CJIA 2008 - Asks two questions
1. Was it necessary to use any degree of force?
2. If so , was the degree of force used proportionate or reasonable to the harm threatened or the risk to be averted?

Question 4

What is the rule with mistaken belief?

Answer 4

(R v William (Gladstone) 1983) set out a two part test for mistaken belief:
1. D must be judged based on his honesty held view of the facts, even if mistaken
2. D can strike first

Question 5

Explain the legal principle of R v William (Gladstone)

Answer 5

V saw women being robbed so chased and tackled robber. D saw V tackling man to ground but didn’t see prior incident so believing V was assaulting a man D punched V.

Held: D’s conviction of ABH was quashed as he honestly believed V was attacking the man, even though he was mistaken.

Question 6

Explain the rules with Intoxication

Answer 6

S76(5) CJIA 2008 - D cannot rely on their mistaken belief if the reason they held the belief because they were voluntarily intoxicated.

Question 7

Explain the legal principle of R v O’Grady

Answer 7

D was intoxicated, and awoken by his friend hitting his head. D picked up some broken glass and started hitting his friend with glass

Held: D is not emitted to rely upon a mistake when the D has become voluntarily intoxicated.

Question 8

Explain the rule with pre-emptive strike

Answer 8

D can strike first if he honestly believes the force to be in defence of himself or another.
(Beckford v R)

Question 9

Explain the legal principle for Beckford v R

Answer 9

D was a police officer who killed a suspect who he believed was trying to shoot him while evading arrest.

Held: A person must use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he honestly believes them to be in defence of himself or another

Question 10

Explain the rule with retreat

Answer 10

D need not show reluctance to fight to be able to claim self-defence
(R v Bird)
(AG Ref (No2 1984)

Question 11

Explain the legal principle for R v Bird

Answer 11

D was arguing with her ex-boyfriend when he slammed her against a wall. D hit him across the face to prevent him from hitting her first but she forgot she was holding a glass in her hand which smashed into his face.

Held: There is no obligation to show an unwillingness to fight to be able to use the defence.

Question 12

Explain the legal principle from AG Ref No2 1984

Answer 12

Ds shop was in the centre of extreme riots taking place. D made 10 petrol bombs to protect himself in case he was subject to further attacks.

Held: The defence was allowed for offences based on possession of preparation of attacks provided the possession ceases when the danger of attack ends

Question 13

Explain when force will not be reasonable/ proportionate

Answer 13

S76 CJIA 2008- sets out the following for a jury to consider when deciding whether force is reasonable in the circumstances:
1. A person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary actions and

if someone acts according to what they genuinely believe is necessary and right for a legitimate reason, that’s enough evidence that they acted reasonably
(R v Hussain)
(R v Martin)

Question 14

Explain the legal principle from
R v Hussain

Answer 14

D house broken into by armed men, D and family threatened and managed to escape. Armed men ran off but D chased and beat them up.

Held: D couldn’t rely on self-defence as the threat of danger from original attack was over.

Question 15

Explain the legal principle for R v Martin

Answer 15

Two burglar broke into D’s Farmhouse. D fired several shots one died and the other suffered serious injuries. D claimed they were self-defence but evidence proved otherwise as both intruders were leaving when shot.

Held: Defence was not effective. The threat had gone, and Martin and had not acted proportionately or reasonably by shooting the two boys.

Question 16

Explain excessive force

Answer 16

If D uses excessive force this will not be proportionate, and D cannot use the danger
(R v Clegg) 1995

Question 17

Explain the legal principle for R v Clegg

Answer 17

D, a soldier stationed at a checkpoint had fired 4 shots at a stolen car the 4th shot killed a passenger. D was charged with murder.

Held: The 4th shot was fired as the car was driving away so the force used was disproportionate.

Question 18

Explain when force will be unreasonable in a household case

Answer 18

The Crime and Courts Act 2013 held under s43 a wider defence available to householders when an intruder enters their property. Force is reasonable unless it is grossly disproportionate.

Question 19

Explain the legal principle from collins v SOSJ

Answer 19

Homeowner held collins a burglar in a headlock. The burglar suffered from brain damage after not breathing for 6 minutes

Held: Force wasn’t grossly disproportionate so was reasonable

Question 20

Explain the legal principle from R v Ray

Answer 20

D stabbed V during a fight in V’s former home.

Held: The court that up to grossly proportionate force could be used to protect themselves or others and if they honestly thought it was required.