Self Defence Law and Conflict Resolution

Authors Avatar
Self Defence Law and Conflict Resolution

When looking at the subject of Conflict Resolution, it is paramount that we look at the Law relating to this. Whether we are discussing Conflict Resolution in the workplace or in day to day life, the Law will always be judged in the same manor

Introduction to Self Defence Law

At common law the defence of self-defence works on three different levels. It allows a person to use reasonable force to:

(a) Defend himself from an attack.

(b) Prevent an attack on a third party, R v Rose (1884) 15 Cox 540, where the defendant who had fatally shot his father whilst the father was severely attacking the defendant's mother, was acquitted of murder on the grounds of self-defence.

(c) Defend his property.

In addition, s3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:

"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."

Both the common law and statutory defences can be used in respect of any crime in which the defendant is charged, and if successful will result in the defendant being completely acquitted. But if a defendant uses excessive force this shows that he acted unreasonably. Therefore, there will be no valid defence, and the defendant will be liable.

. REASONABLE FORCE

The normal guidelines are that the law allows only reasonable force to be used in the circumstances and, what equates to reasonable is to be judged depending on the circumstances and what the accused believed them to be (whether reasonably or not). In deciding whether the defendant had used only reasonable force, in Palmer v R [1971] AC 814, lord Morris made the following points:

* A person who is being attacked should not be expected to "weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action".
Join now!


* If the jury thought that in the heat of the moment the defendant did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary then that would be strong evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.

* A jury will be told that the defence of self-defence will only fail if the prosecution show beyond reasonable doubt that what the accused did was not by way of self-defence.

For excessive use of force not being a defence at all, see R v Clegg [1995] 1 All ER 334 (the well known case involving a soldier ...

This is a preview of the whole essay