Force is appropriate if a reasonable person considers it necessary to use force and would have used the same level of force as the accused. This test is fundamentally objective: the accused cannot decide for himself what is appropriate on the basis of his own values. However, the hypothetical reasonable person is imbued with the defendant`s factual beliefs about the circumstances. [5] This is the case even if the respondent`s beliefs about the circumstances are erroneous. [6] In addition, the law also recognizes that, in the heat of the moment, a person may sometimes use force that, while honestly deemed necessary at the time, was in fact disproportionate to closer inspection. The law recognizes that this may not have been done with specific malicious intent and therefore gives the individual the « benefit of the doubt » in these situations. However, disproportionate force is only acceptable if it is used to protect oneself or others – it cannot be used to protect property. If you are sure that the defendant did not honestly believe that it was necessary to use force to defend himself, he cannot have acted in self-defense, and you do not need to examine this matter further. But what if you believe that the accused honestly believed, or perhaps honestly believed, that it was necessary to use force to defend himself? If ever there were any doubts about authority for the use of self-defence, the words of Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130 are helpful. His Lordship said: Self-defense is perhaps the best-known defense against violent crime, but many people don`t know what the law means in practice. Self-defense allows you to use force to protect yourself or another person, defend your property, or prevent crime. That is, it applies only to reasonable measures taken in good faith.
This means that violence is used in revenge for past violence; or the manifest excessive use of force in the circumstances is out of the question. Although self-defence can apply to a variety of crimes, it is most often used in relation to crimes against the person and homicide. It should be recalled that in the Williams (Gladstone) criminal case, the Court of Appeal held that the error must be established honestly, but not necessarily reasonably (see above). In Ashley, the House of Lords upheld this decision as it relates to criminal proceedings, but held that where a civil case involves self-defence, there is an opinion that the need to act in response to an attack or imminent attack must be assessed on the basis of the facts: as the accused honestly believed them. whether he was mistaken or not, but if he made an error of fact, he can only rely on that fact if the error was reasonable for him, according to Lord Scott. In these cases, it is recognized that while a court may take time to consider the appropriateness of the respondent`s response, the defendant itself does not have that luxury and must act immediately, so precise proportionality is not considered necessary. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, Oatridge (1991) 94 Cr App Rep 367, where it was held that one of the issues to be decided by the court was whether the defendant`s response was « proportionate to the degree of danger caused by the attack ». Here in America, we`re obviously famous for our gun culture, and so we have pretty loose self-defense laws. Most states allow concealed carrying of firearms to some extent and issue permits or simply have no regulations at all. The strictest areas are California, Hawaii and East Coast states such as New York and New Jersey.
In recent decades, there have been high-profile burglaries in UK residential building safety laws. With regard to owners and the criminal law of self-defence, specific cases involving weapons have highlighted the issue of self-defence in the event of burglary. But at first glance, the results of these cases may seem confusing. For example, in R. v. Martin (2002), the owner`s claim for self-defence was denied and he was charged with manslaughter after shooting an intruder in the back (with an illegally held shotgun). But in 2012, the CPS decided not to charge a couple after the man shot two intruders with his legally held shotgun. The accused therefore had a defence of self-defence because the murder was not unlawful if, in the circumstances he considered, he had used appropriate force to defend himself. The basic principles of self-defence are in Palmer/R, [1971] AC 814; approved in R.
v. McInnes, 55 Cr App R 551: Along with the requirement that the use of force be required, this is the most important aspect of defence. Despite the suggestion of complete objectivity in the word « reasonable », the consideration of whether the accused acted reasonably is judged by the reactions of the reasonable person in the respondent`s position. The burden of proof lies with the Public Prosecutor`s Office if the question of self-defence is raised. Once a case has been classified by the police as a case involving difficult questions of self-defence, the police should be encouraged to seek advice from the CPS before initiating proceedings. In Julien [1969] 1 WLR 839, for example, the Court concluded that withdrawal was considered a prerequisite to the establishment of the defence of self-defence. He said the defense lawyer had to « show by his actions that he doesn`t want to fight. » This case was followed by McInne [1971] 1 WLR 1600, where the appropriateness of the defence counsel`s actions could be examined in light of his willingness to « retreat and delay ». However, this is no longer the current state of English law. In Drane [2008] EWCA 1746, the Court of Appeal criticized the trial judge, who instructed the jury as follows: « . The first question is: « Was it necessary to do what he actually did? If it weren`t necessary, that`s the end of self-defense. ».