Self-defence is commented upon in both common and statute law. Although it is common in legal documents, much jargon is used which can make it difficult to understand. I am not legally trained, however through researching reliable sources and my work for the World Combat Association’s Combat Coach programme, I have educated myself on the subject. Here I give my simplification and interpretation of Self Defence Laws in England and Wales.
Section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act put the right to self-defence in place, with all other legal precedents following on from it. Different aspects of self-defence are covered by different types of law, with defence of a person being covered by common law, and defence of property being a part of the Criminal Damage Act. It is important to note that the aim is to maintain the Law and keep the ‘Queen’s Peace’, however anyone acting reasonably in self-defence should not be prosecuted for protecting themselves, another person or their property, or for trying to prevent a crime. It is also notable that acting in self-defence can be claimed by anyone accused of any crime involving violence except in cases of sexual assault, as there is never an instance in which sexual assault is a valid protection.
Going more into the specifics of the law, the first thing to comment upon is something some people worry about, and that is proving that you were acting in self-defence. You do not have to prove that you were acting in self-defence, only raise your actions as self-defence with the police and tell the court. Anyone worried about being questioned in terms of claiming self-defence should take heart from this. To rebut a claim of self-defence it must be found that you were not acting in self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. Your claim of self-defence has to be dis-proved rather than proved. This means anyone who wishes to question your motives has to prove that you were not defending yourself, and a prosecutor has to feel there is enough evidence of it to to disprove your claim. If a claim of self-defence is accepted by a court, it is a complete defence for your actions.
The basics of self-defence are stated in common law in Palmer v R (1971) – ‘It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonable and necessary’. This is similarly stated in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 – ‘A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large’. Laws relating to self-defence boil down to two straightforward principles, that you have to have acted in response to what you believed the threat was, and that your response has to be reasonable.
A key aspect of the law is that it is based upon your honestly held belief. This is important – it means that it does not matter if what you believed was going to happen didn’t come to pass, but that it was your honest belief at the time, which works to justify your claim of self-defence. It is also significant that it is always what the defendant believed, not anyone else. If a bystander or someone watching CCTV footage after the event didn’t think it was a dangerous situation that does not matter provided you did, and the jury believes this to be the case. This only changes if you were voluntarily intoxicated (whether that be with drugs or alcohol) at the time. If you were intoxicated at the time you can still claim to have been acting in self-defence, however your actions are judged a little differently. Instead of seeing if your actions were reasonable based on your honestly held belief, the court will ascertain if your actions were reasonable in the light of what actually happened. This is because in the eyes of the law you are not able to form an honestly held belief while intoxicated. However it must be reinforced that you can claim to have been acting in self-defence successfully while under the influence.
This leads on to the need for force used to be reasonable which is stated clearly in the law. For example in Beckford v. The Queen it states ‘A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property’. So what classifies reasonable force? There are several clauses in the law which refer to this, including ‘The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive’ (Palmer v The Queen) and ‘If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ...’ (Palmer v R 1971). Essentially, what this means is the jury has to come to a decision as to whether the force used was that which a reasonable person would use in the circumstances as you believed them to be. So once you have established the circumstances as you believed them to be and this has been accepted, the jury will then decide if the reaction you gave was one which a reasonable person would have in those circumstances. It is important not to be afraid to act – it is exceptionally rare for someone’s force to be viewed as unreasonable and has only occurred a handful of times in recent English cases, so do not be scared to act if you need to.
The law is also clear on pre-emptive striking (striking before your attacker has the opportunity to). R v Beckford states that ‘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’. This means that you are perfectly within your rights to strike someone before they strike you, provided you believe that this strike is coming. This, again, focuses on your belief. It also encourages you to trust your instincts, if you think they are creepy, or get a bad vibe off of them and feel in danger, you do not have to wait for them to strike and prove you right before you act. So long as you believe an attack is coming, strike first.
The crown prosecution service website also refers to striking a balance in cases referring to self-defence. It is stated that a balance is needed between ‘public interest in promoting a responsible contribution’ to people preserving order while discouraging vigilantism and general violence. I would also argue there is a further balance to be considered, which is that it is not just promoting normal people to preserve order, but to reassure them through the actions taken in courts so that they feel able to act in self-defence when necessary without fearing repercussions. This means it is unlikely that cases relating to self-defence will appear in court as it is not in the public interest.
These quotations of the law were all taken directly from the Crown Prosecution Service website, which is a very good place to look if you are interested in more details of the law (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime). There are also some good youtube videos out there on this topic. One I would suggest is Black Belt Barrister’s, as he is a martial artist and lawyer who has an in depth knowledge of these laws (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uegny5f72cY).
Comments