Assessment #01: Problem Scenario
(a) A brief digest of the key facts
Individual risks facing legal proceedings in case they apply force as self-defense against an assault, thus causing death or injury to the assailant. Self-defence is a universally accepted principle to enable an individual to protect him/herself from potential harm under suitable circumstances (Simms and Thompson 2015). This is the case, even though the behaviour might under normal circumstances be regarded as a crime. Roger is alleged to have tried to push Jane into the road while waiting for the bus, upon which she reacted by punching him. Roger is a stranger to Jane and so Jane justifies her action as a form of self-defence. Common law acts as a custodian of the defence of the person as a form of defence against attack on the self. Such force as is used in self defence must be reasonable given the prevailing circumstances. While it may have been reasonable for Jane to act in self defence, her action of punching Roger may not have been necessary considering that her defence is that Roger tried to push her. The essay endeavours to identify the relevant legal issues and apply these in determining whether Jane has a strong ground for appealing the case after she is convinced by the court.
(b) Identification of the relevant legal issue(s)
Self-defence refers to an individual's right to prevent suffering violence or force via the application of an adequate level of counteracting violence or force (Thomson Reuters, 2017). However, the only justifiable reason for the use of self-defence is when an individual is faced with an immediate threat that they have to respond to. A verbal threat could also warrant self-defence, so long as the intended victim is faced with an immediate fear of such an action (Simms, 2015). Nonetheless, the justification of self-defence is no longer applicable when the intended victim is no longer under threat. Self-defence could also be justified in case the fear of harm to which the victim was exposed, is reasonable. The most important thing here is if a "reasonable person" faced with similar circumstances, would have viewed an immediate threat as constituting physical harm. At times, an individual could harbour real fear of impending physical harm but such harm turns out to be objectively unreasonable. In the event that the individual devices to use force as a form of defence from the discernible threat, we talk of "imperfect self-defence.”, given the prevailing situation. While imperfect self-defence cannot be taken to be an excuse or justification to use force in defence of perceived harm, it can, however, reduce the penalties and charges faced by such a person.
The basic principle of self-defence is that the law only permits people to use reasonable force in defending themselves from potential harm in the prevailing situation (British Self Defence Governing Body, n.d.). What qualifies as reasonable force is assessed by taking into consideration the circumstances as the defendant perceived these (be they reasonable, or not). In Palmer v R [1971] AC 814, Lord Morris, in evaluating if the accused had only applied reasonable force, was of the opinion that a jury ought to be directed to examine the specific circumstances and facts surrounding the case. Judge Morris further held that "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 reasonably necessary." In this case, Lord Morris noted that it should not be anticipated that an individual under attack will "weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action". Should the jury be convinced that the accused, in the heat of the moment, undertook an action that he instinctively and honestly believes was essential, this would thus act as strong evidence that the defendant undertook reasonable action to defend himself. Judge Morris further held that should the prosecution prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant's action does not qualify as a form of self-defence, this signifies the failure of the defence of self-defence.
The above statement underlies the common law approach to self-defence, and is also underlined by s.3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act. The 1967 Criminal Evidence Act permits the use of reasonable force as a means of preventing being attacked unlawfully (Legislation.gov.uk., n.d.). However, the court has to prove that the defendant, by using force as a form of self-defence, was genuinely convinced that they were faced with imminent danger or were being attacked and that the response was commensurate to the felt threat. This particular section of the legislation indicates thus: "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."
A defendant could also mistakenly perceive as being under threat, thereby prompting them to take action in self-defence. Based on the facts given by the trial judge in R v Williams (1984), it would seem that the accused qualifies to be judged based on the facts of the case as he genuinely perceived them to be. Accordingly, the defendant would be allowed to apply a certain level of reasonable force under the circumstances that he felt the harm was happening. In R v Williams (1984), Mason witnessed a youth on the streets trying to rob a woman. He pursued the young man and knocked him to the ground. Williams, a third party who did not see the robbery taking place, came onto the scene and Mason lied to him that he was a police officer. Williams requested that Mason show his warrant card and a struggle ensued. The prosecution charged Williams with an assault that resulted in actual bodily harm to Mason. In his defence at the trial, Williams argued that his intervention was informed by his mistaken belief that the plaintiff was unlawfully assaulting the young man. The trial judge held that William’s mistaken belief could only qualify as a form of defence in case it was proven to be both reasonable and honest.
(c) Application
Jane's argument is that she punched Roger in self-defence. The onus is on the defence to prove that the force that she used in self-defence to the attack was not necessary; otherwise, this might just be an indication that Jane's actions were unreasonable. There appears to be a significant overlap between statutory defence and common law in regard to the issue of self defence. For example, in case the victim hits the assailant in self defence, he might argue at common law that in applying reasonable force he was trying to defend himself (Sangero, 2006). He might also argue that by applying reasonable force, he sought to avoid being assaulted (Simms, 2015). This latter argument constitutes the statutory defence. In this case, the statutory defence allows a person to apply reasonable force to avoid a crime from happening, in situations where he is unable to take advantage of common law. Jane's action must be proven to be proportionate to the alleged assault in order to justify her use of reasonable force. Jane's action to punch Roger on grounds that he tried to push her into the road is not reasonable given the degree of force used relative to the alleged crime. This is because there is no evidence that the alleged action actually happened. We only know from Jane's assertion that the victim tried to push her; we do not know whether this actually apprehends. Also, there is no evidence whether Jane had been pushed on the road there was an oncoming vehicle that would have hence put her life in danger. However, the fact that Jane stated that she "lashed out" and punched Roger is indicative of the fact that she genuinely felt that acting in self-defence was a legitimate and necessary action under the circumstances. Whether Jane's alleged belief that a crime was being committed was based on a mistaken view of facts, the prosecution has to prove that the force that she applied in self-defence was unnecessary under the circumstances. Jane must be judged based on her mistaken view of facts. This should be the case regardless of whether the mistake might have been a reasonable one, or not.
(d) Conclusion
Jane has been charged with punching Roger and causing grievous bodily harm. She claims that Roger tried to punch her into the road, prompting her to punch him in self-defence. While this may be permissible grounds for self-defence under common law, Jane's actions might have been unreasonable under the circumstances as they are not proportionate to the alleged assault. The onus is on the defence to convince the court of appeal that Jane's action in the heat of the moment was in keeping with her genuine belief at the time that she was taking reasonable action to defend herself. The defence could invoke Lord Morris' ruling in Palmer v R [1971] AC 814, in arguing that the force that she applied was reasonable given that an individual under attack should not be anticipated to "weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action".
References
British Self Defence Governing Body., n.d. Law Relating to Self-Defence. [Online].
Legislation.gov.uk., n.d. Criminal Law Act 1967 CHAPTER 58. [Online]. Palmer v R [1971] AC 814
R v Gladstone Williams (1984) 78 Cr. App. R. 276
Sangero, B., 2006. Self-defence in Criminal Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Simms, L., 2015. UK Self-Defence Law: A Practical Guide to Understanding the Law of Defending Yourself. Lulu.com.
Simms, L., and Thompson, G., 2015. UK Self-Defence Law: A Practical Guide to Understanding the Law of Defending Yourself. 3rd Edition. Toronto: Thompson Publishing.
The Crown Prosecution Services., n.d. Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime. CPS. [Online].
Thomson Reuters., 2017. Self-Defense Overview. Findlaw. [Online].
