The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which it is used. Factors such as mistake and intoxication may also be relevant. Critically consider the truth of the above statement.

Authors Avatar

“The justifiable use of force in self-defence depends entirely upon the circumstances in which it is used. Factors such as mistake and intoxication may also be relevant”.

Critically consider the truth of the above statement.

        Self-defence (which includes acting in the prevention of crime) results in a compete acquittal. It allows rotationally criminal activity to be accepted by the courts. It can be used as a defence to all crimes, including murder. An obvious point here to consider is whether it is really morally right to allow those have taken lives to receive a full acquittal. It may be fair for lesser crimes, but maybe a partial defence should be introduced for those who have killed another. However, it is more commonly used for non-fatal offences. There are three situations in which force can be used. This includes prevention of crime (S.3 (1) Criminal Law Act 1967), defence of property (S.5 (2) Criminal Damage Act 1971) and of course self-defence which is found in common law. As it is not laid down in a specific act, but just common law, it may provide some inconsistencies in the law. When the defendant pleads self-defence, the onus is placed on the prosecution to disprove it. There are two limbs to this principle. The prosecution must prove that the use of any force was unnecessary or, if some force was justifiable that the actual degree of force used was reasonable.  

        The first limb consists of the necessity of force, which is subjective test. This may be seen as a positive element to the defendant because the necessity of the force is considered through the circumstances as they appeared to the defendant at the time. However, this may wider the availability of the defence too much. The danger that the defendant apprehends must be sufficiently specific or imminent to justify their actions, and of a nature which could not reasonably be met by more soothing means. It is not necessary for there to be a developing attack, the defendant can apprehend an attack. In Beckford (1988), a policeman’s family was threatened by a local drugs gang. He pummeled the dealer with a chair leg and there was no death. Lord Griffiths said 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”. A concern that may be raised here is how far the principle of pre-emptive strikes can actually go. This was also confirmed in Cousins (1982), where the defendant believed that a contract had been take out on his life. He armed himself with a shotgun and paid a visit to the person’s father who he thought was behind the contract and told him “I’m going to kill him”. He was allowed the defence as Lord Milmo said “it can amount to a lawful excuse for a threat to kill if the threat is made in the prevention of crime or for self-defence, provided it is reasonable in the circumstances to make such a threat”.

Join now!

        Whether or not preparing to an attack to defend, even when it involves breaches of the law, was a question arisen in Attorney-General’s Reference (No.2 of 1983).The defendant’s shop had been attacked and damaged by rioters, so fearing further attacks he made petrol bombs. Even though possessing explosive substances is an offence under the Explosive Substances Act 1883, he was still allowed the defence. This may, however, be too unreasonable to produce petrol bombs and they are very dangerous. This, therefore, broadens the defence.

        The leading case in whether there is a duty to retreat is Bird (1985). The ...

This is a preview of the whole essay