Self-Defence/Defence of Another/Prevention of Crime

• Self-defence comes from common law
• General defence - if successful -> complete acquittal
• This defence allows a person to use reasonable force to
  • Defend himself from attack
  • Defend another from attack
    • E.g. R v Rose (1884) D shot father, who was attacking D's mother. D was acquitted on grounds of self-defence 
  • Defend his property
• There is also Prevention of Crime - s3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 - 'a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in ... assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders ...'
• Parlieament has partially consolidated self-defence + prevention of crime into s76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
  • states: 'a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances'

• Burden of proof on P to disprove D used self-defence
• P must prove:
  • Use of any force = unnecessary, or if it was, then
  • The actual degree of force used was unreasonable

• Was the force D used necessary? - for jury to decide
• Crim Just Imm Act - a person is not under any obligation to retreat
  • But D not taking opportunity to retreat might be relevant in deciding if force = necessary

R v Bird (1985) 

• D was hit by a man and D hit back in self-defence
• Trial judge: self-defence only available if D had shown unwillingness to fight
• Conviction quashed: an unwillingness to fight not necessary.
  • there are situations where D might reasonably react immediately w/out first retreating

• D can use force to prevent an attack
  • D doesn't need to wait until he is being hit

Beckford v R (1988)

• Lord Griffith: 'a man about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike the first blow or fire the first shot; circumstances may justify a pre-emptive strike'

A-G Ref (no2 1983/84) 

• D made petrol bombs during riots to protect his shop
• Anticipated attack never happened + D did not use petrol bombs
• Charged under Explosive Substances Act 1883
• D successfully pleaded self-defence

• If attacker = running away, highly unlikely that any force will be seen as necessary

Hussain and Another (2010) 

• D was burgled
• Burglars ran off but D and another fam member chased them
• Caught one burglar + beat him up
• Held: self-defence not available as danger from original attack had passed

• Where D makes genuine mistake, jury will decide whether the force was necessary in the circumstances as D believed existed - Williams

Williams (1987)

• D saw what looked like man assaulting youth
• D asked man what he was doing + man said that he was PC arresting youth for assaulting old lady. D asked man to show police ID but man failed to do so
  • Struggle broke out between D and man
• Trial judge: mistake would only be a defence if it was both honest and reasonable (objective)
• CA: Conviction quashed: jury should have been directed to whether D's misktaken belief was genuine regardless of whether it was reasonable or not (subjective)

Crim Just + Imm Act 2008 s75(3)+(4)

• 'The question of whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be ... whether or not it was a mistaken belief ... or ... whether or not it was reasonable'

A drunken mistake concerning the necessity for, or the amount of force required in self-defence is no defence - O'Grady, Hatton

O'Grady (1987) 

• D killed V while drunk
• D charged w/manslaughter 
• Self-Defence failed
  • Since put into Statute - Crim Just + Imm Act 2008 - D cannot rely on a mistaken belief in relation to the necessity for, or amount of force used, if that mistake is due to D's involuntary intoxication

Hatton (2005) 

• D killed V w/sledgehammer while drunk
• D charged w/murder
• Ruled that decision in O'Grady not limited to basic intent offences - drunken mistake regarding amount of force needed in self-defence -> not a defence

• law allows reasonable force to be used in the circumstances
• If the force used was disproportionate in the circumstances as D believed them to be, this is not reasonable
• To decide whether force was reasonable the following will be taken into account
  • s76(7)(a) - ... a person ... may not be able to weight to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
  • s76(7)(b) - ... evidence of a person's having only done what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary ... constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken ...'
    • summary: someone facing attack is likely to be under stress -> cannot be expected to weigh up accurately how much force to use in the situation. If he honestly and instinctively thought that the level of force used was necesary -> strong evidence that degree of force = reasonable in the circumstances

• Crime and Courts Act 2013 ammended s76 Crim Just Imm Act 2008 to give wider defence to people when in their homes
  • Normally, degree of force not reasonable if force = disproportionate (in circumstances as D believed them to be)
  • w/householder cases, degree of force not reasonable if force = grossly disproportionate

To be a householder case

• the force concerned is force used by D while in/partly in a building that is a dwelling
• D cannot be a trespasser
• D must have believed V to be a trespasser 

Note: also applies to residences that are also places of work (e.g. if D is a shopkeeper)

• If D's psychiatric condition makes him genuinely believe that force is necessary + courts accept this -> D should be able to use self-defence
• But this is doubtful - Act did not make it clear whether a psychiatric condition would be taken into account or not