Defences Self-defence – Prevention of crime

Lesson objectives I will be able to state the definition of the defence of self-defence/prevention of crime I will be able to distinguish between self- defence and prevention of crime

Introduction This topic is sometimes called public and private defence – this is because the common law defence of self-defence is extended, and to some extent superseded, by the statutory defence of public defence (prevention of crime) under the Criminal Law Act 1967 s3 As the two overlap, the idea of self-defence is still relevant as it may be that a person is defending themselves from someone who is not, in fact, committing a crime, e.g. because they are insane

The Criminal Law Act 1967 s3 This section provides: 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 of persons unlawfully at large The following points need to be considered: –The necessity of force –The reasonableness of force

The necessity of force The basic principle is that the use of force is not justified if it is not necessary. It will be necessary if it is seen to be so in the circumstances which exist of which the defendant genuinely believed existed. This can be seen in: Gladstone Williams (1987) – the defence under s3 Criminal Law Act 1967 is based on the genuine belief of the defendant rather than the actual facts; in this case the defendant believed a youth was being attacked when in fact his victim was trying to arrest the youth

The defence comes into operation even if the attack has not yet taken place providing it is imminent – in other words, the defendant does not have to wait for an attack to start but can get in the first blow The difficulty with this is establishing that the force he uses is reasonable. However, it is clear that the defendant does not have a duty to retreat as far as possible before using force which was the case under the old law: Bird (1985) – the defendant does not have to wait for an attack to start but can get in the first blow

The reasonableness of force The jury have the task of deciding whether, in all the circumstances, the defendant used reasonable force The jury, of course, can take as long as they need to balance the facts, the facts as the defendant believed them, the circumstances of the attack, the time available to the defendant to decide on his course of action, and balance the risk to himself against the risk of harm to the victim The defendant usually does that in a split second so he may use excessive force – if that is the case, that excessive force is unlawful

Palmer (1971) – in this case Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest set out the way in which reasonable force was to be explained The famous cases of Corporal Clegg, a soldier on a checkpoint in Northern Ireland in the 1990s faced with what might be a terrorist attack, and Tony Martin in 2001, who shot and killed a 16 year old intruder with a pump-action shotgun, demonstrate the extremes to which a jury must go when considering what amounts to reasonable force

Conclusion The defence of self-defence and prevention of crime is available to a person who 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 of persons unlawfully at large – the key aspects of the defence are the necessity of force and the reasonable of force

Exam Q