Self Defence/Defence of Another

Question 1

Under s 3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967, a person may use force in the prevention of crime if it is:
A. Reasonable in the circumstances to effect or assist a lawful arrest or prevent crime
B. Excessive to ensure the threat is eliminated
C. Only non-lethal force
D. Only in defence of property

Answer 1

A. Reasonable in the circumstances to effect or assist a lawful arrest or prevent crime
Explanation: s 3(1) CLA 1967 permits force to prevent crime or assist arrest so long as it is “reasonable in the circumstances”

Question 2

The test for self-defence under s 76 CJIA 2008 requires:
A. A purely subjective test of D’s honest belief in necessity
B. A purely objective test of force proportionateness
C. A hybrid: D’s honest belief in necessity plus objective reasonableness of the force
D. No consideration of D’s belief

Answer 2

C. A hybrid: D’s honest belief in necessity plus objective reasonableness of the force
Explanation: s 76(1)–(3) CJIA 2008 confirms D must genuinely believe force was necessary (subjective) and use only such force as is reasonable (objective)

Question 2

D knows V plans to attack him at 6 pm. At 6 pm, D strikes first with minimal force to disable V. Is this self-defence?
A. No—must wait for the attack to start
B. Yes—anticipatory self-defence is allowed if D genuinely believes an attack is imminent
C. No—first strike always unlawful
D. Yes—but only if V misses the strike

Answer 2

B. Yes—anticipatory self-defence is allowed if D genuinely believes an attack is imminent
Explanation: D may “strike first” if he honestly believes force is needed to prevent imminent unlawful force

Question 3

Lee sees a stranger about to punch his friend and steps in, using mild force to push the assailant away. Which is correct?
A. No defence—only self-defence for oneself
B. Defence of another uses the same test as self-defence
C. Partial defence requiring lesser force
D. Must wait until friend is hit first

Answer 3

B. Defence of another uses the same test as self-defence
Explanation: Defence of another is covered by the same statutory and case-law tests as self-defence—honest belief plus reasonable force

Question 4

In a householder case, D may use force that is:
A. Always strictly proportionate
B. Completely disproportionate if necessary
C. Disproportionate but not grossly so
D. Grossly disproportionate with no limit

Answer 4

C. Disproportionate but not grossly so
Explanation: For householder defence, s 76(5A) CJIA allows disproportionate force so long as it is not grossly disproportionate

Question 5

Under current law, D’s failure to retreat when faced with an attack is:
A. A bar to self-defence
B. Relevant but not mandatory to reasonableness
C. Required in all non-householder cases
D. Required only if unarmed

Answer 5

B. Relevant but not mandatory to reasonableness
Explanation: s 76(2) CJIA makes failure to retreat a factor for the jury but imposes no absolute duty to flee

Question 6

If D uses grossly disproportionate force in his home against an intruder, the likely outcome is:
A. Full acquittal under householder defence
B. Conviction for a more serious offence
C. Loss of self-defence defence and conviction of underlying offence
D. Automatic reduction to manslaughter

Answer 6

C. Loss of self-defence defence and conviction of underlying offence
Explanation: Gross disproportionality in householder cases defeats the defence, leaving D liable for the substantive offence

Question 7

A belief that force is necessary, caused by voluntary intoxication, will:
A. Always support self-defence
B. Not support self-defence if the mistake is due to voluntary intoxication
C. Be judged by drunken standards
D. Automatically negate MR

Answer 7

B. Not support self-defence if the mistake is due to voluntary intoxication
Explanation: A mistaken belief stemming from voluntary intoxication cannot underpin self-defence

Question 8

D starts a fight by throwing the first punch but, when V retaliates, D honestly believes he must use force to defend himself. Can D rely on self-defence?
A. Yes – initial aggressors may use force in self-defence if they genuinely believe it’s necessary
B. No – starting the violence precludes any defence
C. Yes – but only if V’s force is of a higher level
D. No – self-defence only applies to non-aggressors

Answer 8

A. Yes – initial aggressors may use force in self-defence if they genuinely believe it’s necessary
Explanation: Even where D is the first to use force, he may rely on self-defence once he honestly believes further force is needed to repel V’s unlawful attack

Question 9

Under s 3(1) CLA 1967, to use force in effecting a lawful arrest, D’s force must be:
A. Reasonable only if the suspect resists violently
B. Reasonable in all the circumstances, whether preventing crime or assisting arrest
C. Limited to non-lethal methods
D. Always proportionate even in householder-style scenarios

Answer 9

D. Always proportionate even in householder-style scenarios
Explanation: Section 3 permits reasonable force for prevention of crime or effecting arrest but does not incorporate the householder carve-out; force must remain proportionate in every context