Criminal Law Self Defence Essay
‘The law surrounding self-defence is confusing and difficult to interpret. The law
is in clear need of reform.’ Discuss.
Self-defence is a full defence to all crimes and is most commonly raised in relation to
non-fatal offences but can also be used as a defence to murder, as seen in R v
Beckford, and property offences. If raised successfully, the defendant will receive a full
acquittal. There are three types of self-defence, with the first being Common Law
Self-Defence, which is also known as ‘private defence.’ This defence covers situations
where a person needs to use force in order to defend themselves, others or property.
Much of this common law has been codified by Parliament in s.76 Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008. The Defence of Property is regulated partially by common law
and also by the s.5 Criminal Damage Act 1971, which allows a person to use force if
there is a belief that the property was in immediate need of protection, for example,
smashing your neighbours window to try and put out a fire. The Prevention of Crime is a
statutory defence covered by s.3 Criminal Law Act1967, which provides a defence to a
person who uses force to prevent a crime or assist in a lawful arrest. This is known as
‘public defence.’ This essay will primarily revolve around the issues found within the law
regarding private and property defence.
In order to understand and interpret the law on self-defence, it is important to consider
its moral basis. There are two main theories as to why the criminal law should provide a
defence to those who use force in order to protect themselves or another from an
attack. The consequentialist theory argues simply that where force is used in
self-defence, this produces better consequences then where it is not. When faced with
the alternatives of either the innocent person being attacked or the aggressor being
repelled with force, the latter is the option which produces the greater good. The law
holds, as seen in R v Bird, that there is no duty for a person to retreat from an attack
even if they have the option to. The difficulty with this approach, however, is that it could
‘The law surrounding self-defence is confusing and difficult to interpret. The law
is in clear need of reform.’ Discuss.
Self-defence is a full defence to all crimes and is most commonly raised in relation to
non-fatal offences but can also be used as a defence to murder, as seen in R v
Beckford, and property offences. If raised successfully, the defendant will receive a full
acquittal. There are three types of self-defence, with the first being Common Law
Self-Defence, which is also known as ‘private defence.’ This defence covers situations
where a person needs to use force in order to defend themselves, others or property.
Much of this common law has been codified by Parliament in s.76 Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008. The Defence of Property is regulated partially by common law
and also by the s.5 Criminal Damage Act 1971, which allows a person to use force if
there is a belief that the property was in immediate need of protection, for example,
smashing your neighbours window to try and put out a fire. The Prevention of Crime is a
statutory defence covered by s.3 Criminal Law Act1967, which provides a defence to a
person who uses force to prevent a crime or assist in a lawful arrest. This is known as
‘public defence.’ This essay will primarily revolve around the issues found within the law
regarding private and property defence.
In order to understand and interpret the law on self-defence, it is important to consider
its moral basis. There are two main theories as to why the criminal law should provide a
defence to those who use force in order to protect themselves or another from an
attack. The consequentialist theory argues simply that where force is used in
self-defence, this produces better consequences then where it is not. When faced with
the alternatives of either the innocent person being attacked or the aggressor being
repelled with force, the latter is the option which produces the greater good. The law
holds, as seen in R v Bird, that there is no duty for a person to retreat from an attack
even if they have the option to. The difficulty with this approach, however, is that it could
