Self-Defence/Duress
a. Definitions – Self Defence
- Justification for committing an offence
- General rule [Beckford]
o If D honestly believes that V is threatening the person or property of D or any other
person without lawful authority, then D can use such force against V or V's property as is
reasonably necessary to defend against the attack
- Steps to take
o Is there a threat which justifies self-defence?
o Did D have a subjective belief in the need for defensive force?
o Was the use of force reasonable?
All-or-nothing defence
Palmer
Cannot have partial right to self-defence, you either have it or you do not
b. Is there a Threat Justifying Self-Defence?
- 2 categories
o Present Attack
o Pre-Emptive Measures
c. Present Attack
Devlin v Armstrong
Held that self-defence is justified when attack is imminent and
Ceases when the other party ceases the attack, has been incapacitated, or has successfully
finished and escaped
d. Pre-Emptive Measures
A-G’s Ref (No. 2 of 1983)
Riots were present, and shopkeeper stored petrol bombs as a means of protection
Held that the attack was imminent as it could happen at any moment D could store
weapons as pre-emptive measure
R v Salih
D owns a gun
Charged with possession of a dangerous weapon
D argues that he lived in a dangerous area, owns gun for self-protection
Held that there is a possibility of an attack but no imminent attack self-defence does not
apply
a. Definitions – Self Defence
- Justification for committing an offence
- General rule [Beckford]
o If D honestly believes that V is threatening the person or property of D or any other
person without lawful authority, then D can use such force against V or V's property as is
reasonably necessary to defend against the attack
- Steps to take
o Is there a threat which justifies self-defence?
o Did D have a subjective belief in the need for defensive force?
o Was the use of force reasonable?
All-or-nothing defence
Palmer
Cannot have partial right to self-defence, you either have it or you do not
b. Is there a Threat Justifying Self-Defence?
- 2 categories
o Present Attack
o Pre-Emptive Measures
c. Present Attack
Devlin v Armstrong
Held that self-defence is justified when attack is imminent and
Ceases when the other party ceases the attack, has been incapacitated, or has successfully
finished and escaped
d. Pre-Emptive Measures
A-G’s Ref (No. 2 of 1983)
Riots were present, and shopkeeper stored petrol bombs as a means of protection
Held that the attack was imminent as it could happen at any moment D could store
weapons as pre-emptive measure
R v Salih
D owns a gun
Charged with possession of a dangerous weapon
D argues that he lived in a dangerous area, owns gun for self-protection
Held that there is a possibility of an attack but no imminent attack self-defence does not
apply
