Self-Defence

Question 1

Explain what Self-Defence covers.

Answer 1

• Actions needed to defend oneself from an attack
• Action taken to defend another person
• Actions taken to defend one’s property
• Actions taken to prevent a crime

Question 2

State the 2 questions asked when considering if the Defence of Self-Defence can be used.

Answer 2

1) Was it necessary to use any degree of force?
2) If so, was degree actually used proportionately to the harm threatened or the risk to be averted?

Question 3

Explain what happens where D has made a mistake, with regard to whether it was necessary to use some force, when considering if Self-Defence is available.

Answer 3

• Based on facts at that time, courts have to decided how to deal with the case (R v Gladstone Williams)
• S.76 of Criminal Justice + Immigration Act 2008 puts decision in place
• Important point to establish facts as D genuinely believed them to be- so if D genuinely made mistake, they’re to be judged on facts as they believed them to be- even if mistake’s unreasonable

Question 4

Explain what happens if D is drunk + made a mistake, with regard to whether it was necessary to use some force, when considering if Self-Defence is available.

Answer 4

• If D made mistake because they’d voluntarily gotten drunk/taken drugs, + made mistake because of their voluntarily intoxicated state, then cannot rely on mistaken belief- Case: R v Taj (2018)

Question 5

Explain what happens if D is suffering from delusions, with regard to whether it was necessary to use some force, when considering if Self-Defence is available.

Answer 5

• D’s genuine belief can include delusions resulting from a psychiatric condition/other condition (e.g. PTSD)- only in certain situations- Case: R v Seun Oye (2013)- where D has delusions, mental health not taken into account

Question 6

Explain what happens if it was a pre-emptive state, with regard to whether it was necessary to use some force, when considering if Self-Defence is available.

Answer 6

• Pre-emptive attack (pre-planned, specific) or strike is intended to weaken enemy
• Allowed in case: R v Bird- ruled showing unwillingness to fight is good evidence that D’s acting reasonably

Question 7

Explain if there’s a duty to retreat, with regard to whether it was necessary to use some force, when considering if Self-Defence is available.

Answer 7

• Means withdraw/departure
• S.76 (6A) of Crim Justice + Immigration Act 2008 makes it clear person isn’t under duty to retreat when acting for a legitimate purpose
• But possibility that D could’ve retreated is to be considered, in whether degree of force was necessary.

Question 8

Explain what happens if D is the aggressor, with regard to whether it was necessary to use some force, when considering if Self-Defence is available.

Answer 8

• Even if D is initial aggressor, may use force if V’s response is wholly disproportionate + so seriously threatens- Case: R v Rashford

Question 9

Explain the point: Was the force proportional (reasonable)?

Answer 9

• S.76 of Crim Justice + Immigration Act states except in a householder case, force which is disproportionate won’t be reasonable
• Objective Test (Case: R v Seun Oye (2013))
• Following points may be taken into consideration: 1) no simple reckoning of equality, 2) Initially proportionate force may develop into disproportionate force, 3) Defence lost entirely when force used is disproportionate (excessive)
• Cases: R v Clegg + R v Martin- as result of Martin’s case, rule introduced in householder cases by S.76 of Crim Justice + Immigration Act, states in householder case, force which is grossly disproportionate won’t be reasonable.

Question 10

Explain what happens in a Householder Case, with regard to whether the force was proportional, when considering if Self-Defence can be used.

Answer 10

• To be a householder case, following needs to be shown: force must be used by D while in/partly in building thats a dwelling, D mustn’t be a trespasser, D must’ve believed V to be a trespasser.
• D must genuinely believe that V’s a trespasser- Case: Magson (2022)
• Assuming D genuinely believed force was necessary, tests to be considered: 1) was degree of force D used grossly disproportionate as he/she believed them to be? 2) Was degree of force D used nevertheless reasonable in circumstances hey believed them to be
• Rules considered in case: R v Ray (2017)