Self-defence in English Criminal Law
The Rules on Liability for Reasonable Use of Force in the UK
Oct 16, 2009
English law recognises that sometimes, the use of force is inevitable even for a law-abiding citizen. Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 allows for the use of “such force as is reasonable in the circumstances” for the prevention of crime, which includes using force to defend against an assailant.
What is Reasonable Force?
Because the circumstances of each case will inevitably be different, the statute is silent on what constitutes reasonable force, which leaves the decision to the jury to determine based on the evidence. To this end, it is not possible to say for certain what 'reasonable force' will be in any given situation; although the defender's assessment will play a significant part in the overall determination. Palmer v. R [1971] states that “a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact nature of his necessary defensive action”, which suggests that if a defendant has good reason to believe that his actions were justified, a jury is more likely to find in his favour.
Must the Attacker Hit First?
The decision in R v. Bird [1985] makes it clear that self-defence does not have to be the last resort of someone who is threatened. In Bird, the court stated that a defendant did not have to “retreat” or wait to be hit first before fighting back. Nevertheless, attempting courses of action before resorting to violence in self-defence will significantly increase the likelihood of a jury deciding that the force used in self-defence was merited and therefore reasonable.
What About Mistakes?
Following a number of high-profile criminal law cases such as R v. Williams (Gladstone) (1984), the law on mistakes is now clear. To determine whether the force used in self-defence is reasonable, a defendant must be judged on the facts as he or she honestly believed them to be, even where the defendant has a mistaken or unreasonable belief that force was necessary. Although it should already be obvious, R v. Dadson (1850) made it clear that the law will not take into account any facts of which the defendant was unaware when determining whether force was reasonable under the circumstances as he or she saw them.
Furthermore, the Privy Council's decision in Shaw (Norman) v. R [2002] suggests that when determining what facts the defendant believed, both their physical and psychiatric state should be taken into account. However, medical evidence will be required to prove that any psychiatric conditions are present before they can be taken into account by the courts.
What if the Defendant is Intoxicated?
It is a fundamental aspect of English law that voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defence against criminal prosecution and this is equally true for self-defence claims. R v. O'Grady [1987] established that voluntary intoxication prevents a defendant from relying on the mistaken belief that force was necessary. It is therefore still possible to rely on self-defence in and of itself, but only so far as violence is definitely necessary by the standards of the (sober) 'reasonable person'.
Self-defence is a valid defence against liability for a variety of violent criminal offence charges. In order to rely on self-defence, a defendant must prove that the force they used to defend themselves was reasonable under the circumstances as they believed them to be, where that belief is held honestly and not as a result of a drunken mistake. Where self-defence is proven, it is a full defence and the defendant will be acquitted, but where it fails; the defendant is liable, although it may be possible to rely upon an alternative defence.
 |
