Musings on Self Defence and the Law
British Law is a complex and rather broad subject. It is very much a matter for lawyers rather than laymen. However, instructors and their students do need to know a little about the legality of self-defence. What follows is very basic and in reality nothing more than a ’rule of thumb’ guide.
First of all, please do understand that more people are convicted because of what they say that what they do. It is possible to defend yourself entirely within the law and still be prosecuted because, when interviewed, you come over as a psychopath rather than a decent person who was attacked without provocation.
It is important to be able to (truthfully) explain that you did not want to fight and tried to leave, talk the assailant down, or whatever (if the opportunity was allowed you) and only resorted to physical force when you genuinely believed there was no alternative. You also need to be able to show that the level of force you used was reasonable under the circumstances as you perceived them.
NB: “fighting” is not legal. Exchanging blows outside a pub or a football stadium over a difference of opinion or an unkind word is not legal. Self-defence is a legal within certain limits.
The law recognizes that a person who is under attack, or honestly believes that he or she – or someone nearby – is about to be attacked, has the right to use “reasonable force” to prevent or halt the attack. To quote Lord Griffith (1988) “If no more force is used than is reasonable to repel the attack, such force is not unlawful and no crime is committed”.
The law also recognises that a person under attack cannot precisely calculate the absolute minimum of force required to halt the attack, nor can an ordinary civilian be expected to apply such minimum force effectively.
The law recognises that it is not wise to wait for an assailant to actually attack you. So long as you have been given very clear reason to believe that an attack is imminent, and you cannot otherwise resolve the situation (say by withdrawing), then you may attack pre-emptively. Similarly, you do not need to be attacked yourself in order to be justified in responding with violence. If an attack is underway or obviously imminent on any person nearby, you are legally allowed to use violence to prevent or to halt this attack.
Again, quoting Lord Griffith (1988), a person “…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.” However, if a pre-emptive strike takes place you are not allowed to strike maliciously or vindictively to get revenge after the danger has passed.
The law even recognises that at times it may be necessary to use a weapon or instrument to protect yourself. This is, as always, governed by the concept of “reasonable force”.
If you honestly feel that you are under sufficient threat as to warrant an armed response, the law permits you to provide yourself with some kind of weapon or instrument. However, while you may choose to obtain a weapon in response to a clear and imminent threat, it is not justifiable to arm yourself “just in case” or to habitually go armed.
In addition, you are never justified in possessing a weapon for use in self-defence if the situation requiring its use is of your own making. That is to say, if you have been given reason to fear that someone might come to you with violent intent, then you may pick up or otherwise obtain a weapon. If, on the other hand you are going to confront someone, and bring along a weapon because you suspect that they may become violent, then this is very definitely not lawful since you are creating a situation in which you may have to use the weapon rather than attempting to avoid the possibility of violence or protect yourself from it.
You may be called upon to justify your actions in court, especially if you used a weapon or injured someone badly. However, a wise man once said that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, and if you can show that you acted in good faith and conscience, out of concern for your safety or that of others, then the law is firmly on your side.
You do have certain duties imposed by law. First, and most importantly, you are required to remain within the bounds of common law. An attack on your person is not considered in any way to be “special circumstances”. There are laws governing what you may and may not do, and you must adhere to them.
You are required to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your assailant once he is no longer a threat. This means that if you seriously injure someone, or render him unconscious, you must summon medical assistance. If possible, you should render first aid, but not if this would place you in additional danger. It is perfectly acceptable to flee the scene of the attack and call for an ambulance from a safe distance a few minutes later, if to remain would place you in danger.
You are also expected to inform the police of any incident where injury occurred. You may think that this is unwise, since it draws attention to the fact that you have hurt someone, but in fact it works in your favour, providing you remained within the law and the bounds of Reasonable Force. By reporting the matter to the police you are carrying out the role of a responsible citizen, something that criminals rarely do. If for any reason there are legal complications and the police do become involved, your statement is already on record and your correct behaviour noted. This can be very important if your assailant becomes involved in another fight later, and is injured, or if there is an attempt to cast doubt on your character.
Reasonable and Necessary Force The law in most countries is much the same in that it recognises that an individual has the right to use "reasonable and necessary force" to protect their own safety and that of the people around them. Reasonable force is also permitted in defence of property, but common sense must be applied here. There is little in your wallet or home worth being killed – or killing someone – over, and it could be argued that by violently opposing a burglar or other criminal you are deliberately and unnecessarily creating a situation where violence will probably ensue.
Exactly what constitutes reasonable force is open to debate, and it is sadly true that there have been some horrible travesties of justice. However, in the vast majority of cases common sense wins out. Interpretation of reasonable force depends on several factors:
It is generally recognised that an individual coming suddenly under attack cannot be expected to gauge and to apply the precise minimum of force to end the assault, and that someone who is attacked is not responsible for bringing about that state of affairs; they are instead forced to take whatever violent measures they must in support of their recognised right to protect their own safety.
If you are dragged against your will into the world of the violent criminal then trying to behave “in a civilised manner” can get you hurt or killed. So you must forget about ideals like “never strike first” or “violence solves nothing” and do what you must to escape the situation.
You must match the threat with appropriate measures – however violent – and not hold back. If your life is in danger and the only way to preserve yourself is to cripple, blind or even kill someone, then that is what you must do. That, or choose to die - and our society has no right to expect you to do that! Violent criminals have little remorse and no honour. You must win (at least enough of a victory to escape) or they will do whatever they please to you.
And the law understands that. So long as you do not cease to act like a decent, reasonable citizen, then you are in the right.
It is all but impossible to clearly define what level of force is “reasonable” to fit all possible sets of circumstances. Among the factors that must be weighed up are:
How badly overmatched you are (or vice versa)
The level of force used, threatened or implied by the attacker
The likely consequences of defeat
If an attacker (or group of attackers) were clearly intent upon killing their victim (you or someone else), or were intent on doing something likely to result in death or permanent harm, then a considerable level of force is justifiable. Where someone poses a relatively minor level of threat, an attempt at restraint rather than “impact methods” is all that is reasonable. However it is important to understand that restraint will rarely work against a very violent, determined individual – it sometimes takes four or more trained police officers to restrain a struggling suspect – and common sense must be applied.
In essence, you have the right to use NECESSARY as well as REASONABLE force. You are not required to place yourself at unreasonable risk by remaining constrained by “rules of engagement” forbidding, say, punches to the head, or any such thing. You may do what you honestly believe is necessary to end the assault - and no more.
If your response is judged by a court, then an attempt will be made to establish the reasonableness of your response. The reasonableness of the level of force used is judged objectively. That is, your opinion of how much force must be used is not the one that counts. There is an accepted level of force associated with any given set of circumstances and if you did not remain within those limits then you will be found to have acted unlawfully.
However, where your opinion does matter is in the assessment of the circumstances that prevailed. A court will judge your response as reasonable or not based upon the circumstances as you perceived them. Thus while you are not permitted to use whatever degree of force you feel like, you are permitted to use a degree of force appropriate to the threat that you thought existed.
This has two important ramifications. First of all, it means that if you honestly believed that you were under, or about to come under, attack, and acted to protect yourself, then you have not committed a crime even if you were mistaken in that belief.
Secondly, it means that your assessment of the situation – likely made in a split second as violence erupted in your face – is used to judge the reasonableness of your response. The law recognises that a person under sudden and violent attack does not have complete information on the situation, nor time to determine the exact level of threat.
There are, of course, several things that you simply must not do in a self-defence situation. For the sake of clarity we will spell them out. The law is not on your side if you:
Remember that in most cases of self-defence, there is no legal involvement and even if the police become involved, they will make a judgment as to whether legal proceedings should be undertaken. If it is clear that you acted as a reasonable, responsible citizen, within the bounds of necessary force, then there has been no crime (on your part) and it is extremely unlikely that charges will be brought against you.
This is particularly true if you can demonstrate that you tried to avoid or defuse the incident, then acted only in self-defence, even going so far as to summon medical assistance for your injured assailant. Remember also that the average street thug holds the police in contempt. He is unlikely to attempt legal redress if he is hurt by his intended victim.
Thoughts of courtrooms and juries should not be foremost in your mind while defending yourself. Be aware of the need to use only necessary force, but don't hold back from doing what you must. It is better to explain to a police officer or a court why you were forced to harm someone, than to be killed because you were unwilling to resist effectively or – worse – because you feared you might be punished for it. Remember that there exists absolutely no “Principle of Minimum Force” – you have the right to use “ALL REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FORCE”, which is rather different.
Having said all of this, the whole can of worms stays firmly unopened if you can avoid conflict in the first place. This is why we teach self-protection as a wider subject, within which self-defence is the physical component. Most violent situations are avoidable if you know how to deal with them. Confrontation management, evasion, avoidance, defusion and so on are all valid ways to protect yourself and form an important part of what we teach. However good at physical self-defence you are, things can go wrong.
If you managed to avoid violence altogether then you can’t possibly lose.
First of all, please do understand that more people are convicted because of what they say that what they do. It is possible to defend yourself entirely within the law and still be prosecuted because, when interviewed, you come over as a psychopath rather than a decent person who was attacked without provocation.
It is important to be able to (truthfully) explain that you did not want to fight and tried to leave, talk the assailant down, or whatever (if the opportunity was allowed you) and only resorted to physical force when you genuinely believed there was no alternative. You also need to be able to show that the level of force you used was reasonable under the circumstances as you perceived them.
NB: “fighting” is not legal. Exchanging blows outside a pub or a football stadium over a difference of opinion or an unkind word is not legal. Self-defence is a legal within certain limits.
The law recognizes that a person who is under attack, or honestly believes that he or she – or someone nearby – is about to be attacked, has the right to use “reasonable force” to prevent or halt the attack. To quote Lord Griffith (1988) “If no more force is used than is reasonable to repel the attack, such force is not unlawful and no crime is committed”.
The law also recognises that a person under attack cannot precisely calculate the absolute minimum of force required to halt the attack, nor can an ordinary civilian be expected to apply such minimum force effectively.
The law recognises that it is not wise to wait for an assailant to actually attack you. So long as you have been given very clear reason to believe that an attack is imminent, and you cannot otherwise resolve the situation (say by withdrawing), then you may attack pre-emptively. Similarly, you do not need to be attacked yourself in order to be justified in responding with violence. If an attack is underway or obviously imminent on any person nearby, you are legally allowed to use violence to prevent or to halt this attack.
Again, quoting Lord Griffith (1988), a person “…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.” However, if a pre-emptive strike takes place you are not allowed to strike maliciously or vindictively to get revenge after the danger has passed.
The law even recognises that at times it may be necessary to use a weapon or instrument to protect yourself. This is, as always, governed by the concept of “reasonable force”.
If you honestly feel that you are under sufficient threat as to warrant an armed response, the law permits you to provide yourself with some kind of weapon or instrument. However, while you may choose to obtain a weapon in response to a clear and imminent threat, it is not justifiable to arm yourself “just in case” or to habitually go armed.
In addition, you are never justified in possessing a weapon for use in self-defence if the situation requiring its use is of your own making. That is to say, if you have been given reason to fear that someone might come to you with violent intent, then you may pick up or otherwise obtain a weapon. If, on the other hand you are going to confront someone, and bring along a weapon because you suspect that they may become violent, then this is very definitely not lawful since you are creating a situation in which you may have to use the weapon rather than attempting to avoid the possibility of violence or protect yourself from it.
You may be called upon to justify your actions in court, especially if you used a weapon or injured someone badly. However, a wise man once said that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, and if you can show that you acted in good faith and conscience, out of concern for your safety or that of others, then the law is firmly on your side.
You do have certain duties imposed by law. First, and most importantly, you are required to remain within the bounds of common law. An attack on your person is not considered in any way to be “special circumstances”. There are laws governing what you may and may not do, and you must adhere to them.
You are required to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your assailant once he is no longer a threat. This means that if you seriously injure someone, or render him unconscious, you must summon medical assistance. If possible, you should render first aid, but not if this would place you in additional danger. It is perfectly acceptable to flee the scene of the attack and call for an ambulance from a safe distance a few minutes later, if to remain would place you in danger.
You are also expected to inform the police of any incident where injury occurred. You may think that this is unwise, since it draws attention to the fact that you have hurt someone, but in fact it works in your favour, providing you remained within the law and the bounds of Reasonable Force. By reporting the matter to the police you are carrying out the role of a responsible citizen, something that criminals rarely do. If for any reason there are legal complications and the police do become involved, your statement is already on record and your correct behaviour noted. This can be very important if your assailant becomes involved in another fight later, and is injured, or if there is an attempt to cast doubt on your character.
Reasonable and Necessary Force The law in most countries is much the same in that it recognises that an individual has the right to use "reasonable and necessary force" to protect their own safety and that of the people around them. Reasonable force is also permitted in defence of property, but common sense must be applied here. There is little in your wallet or home worth being killed – or killing someone – over, and it could be argued that by violently opposing a burglar or other criminal you are deliberately and unnecessarily creating a situation where violence will probably ensue.
Exactly what constitutes reasonable force is open to debate, and it is sadly true that there have been some horrible travesties of justice. However, in the vast majority of cases common sense wins out. Interpretation of reasonable force depends on several factors:
- The gravity of the crime you were trying to prevent
- Whether it was possible to prevent it by non-violent means.
- Whether you were ready to try those means first
- The relevant strength of the parties involved
It is generally recognised that an individual coming suddenly under attack cannot be expected to gauge and to apply the precise minimum of force to end the assault, and that someone who is attacked is not responsible for bringing about that state of affairs; they are instead forced to take whatever violent measures they must in support of their recognised right to protect their own safety.
If you are dragged against your will into the world of the violent criminal then trying to behave “in a civilised manner” can get you hurt or killed. So you must forget about ideals like “never strike first” or “violence solves nothing” and do what you must to escape the situation.
You must match the threat with appropriate measures – however violent – and not hold back. If your life is in danger and the only way to preserve yourself is to cripple, blind or even kill someone, then that is what you must do. That, or choose to die - and our society has no right to expect you to do that! Violent criminals have little remorse and no honour. You must win (at least enough of a victory to escape) or they will do whatever they please to you.
And the law understands that. So long as you do not cease to act like a decent, reasonable citizen, then you are in the right.
It is all but impossible to clearly define what level of force is “reasonable” to fit all possible sets of circumstances. Among the factors that must be weighed up are:
How badly overmatched you are (or vice versa)
The level of force used, threatened or implied by the attacker
The likely consequences of defeat
If an attacker (or group of attackers) were clearly intent upon killing their victim (you or someone else), or were intent on doing something likely to result in death or permanent harm, then a considerable level of force is justifiable. Where someone poses a relatively minor level of threat, an attempt at restraint rather than “impact methods” is all that is reasonable. However it is important to understand that restraint will rarely work against a very violent, determined individual – it sometimes takes four or more trained police officers to restrain a struggling suspect – and common sense must be applied.
In essence, you have the right to use NECESSARY as well as REASONABLE force. You are not required to place yourself at unreasonable risk by remaining constrained by “rules of engagement” forbidding, say, punches to the head, or any such thing. You may do what you honestly believe is necessary to end the assault - and no more.
If your response is judged by a court, then an attempt will be made to establish the reasonableness of your response. The reasonableness of the level of force used is judged objectively. That is, your opinion of how much force must be used is not the one that counts. There is an accepted level of force associated with any given set of circumstances and if you did not remain within those limits then you will be found to have acted unlawfully.
However, where your opinion does matter is in the assessment of the circumstances that prevailed. A court will judge your response as reasonable or not based upon the circumstances as you perceived them. Thus while you are not permitted to use whatever degree of force you feel like, you are permitted to use a degree of force appropriate to the threat that you thought existed.
This has two important ramifications. First of all, it means that if you honestly believed that you were under, or about to come under, attack, and acted to protect yourself, then you have not committed a crime even if you were mistaken in that belief.
Secondly, it means that your assessment of the situation – likely made in a split second as violence erupted in your face – is used to judge the reasonableness of your response. The law recognises that a person under sudden and violent attack does not have complete information on the situation, nor time to determine the exact level of threat.
- The reasonableness of your response is judged based on the situation as you perceived it at the time.
- If you carry on attacking someone who is no longer a threat to you, you become the aggressor, and therefore a violent criminal
There are, of course, several things that you simply must not do in a self-defence situation. For the sake of clarity we will spell them out. The law is not on your side if you:
- Habitually carry a weapon, even if only for self-defence
- Enter into a violent situation unless you have no alternative
- Carry on fighting when you could escape instead
- Carry on attacking once it is clear that you are no longer in danger
- Kick or beat a helpless person on the ground
- Deliberately use lethal force except as a last, ultimate resort
Remember that in most cases of self-defence, there is no legal involvement and even if the police become involved, they will make a judgment as to whether legal proceedings should be undertaken. If it is clear that you acted as a reasonable, responsible citizen, within the bounds of necessary force, then there has been no crime (on your part) and it is extremely unlikely that charges will be brought against you.
This is particularly true if you can demonstrate that you tried to avoid or defuse the incident, then acted only in self-defence, even going so far as to summon medical assistance for your injured assailant. Remember also that the average street thug holds the police in contempt. He is unlikely to attempt legal redress if he is hurt by his intended victim.
Thoughts of courtrooms and juries should not be foremost in your mind while defending yourself. Be aware of the need to use only necessary force, but don't hold back from doing what you must. It is better to explain to a police officer or a court why you were forced to harm someone, than to be killed because you were unwilling to resist effectively or – worse – because you feared you might be punished for it. Remember that there exists absolutely no “Principle of Minimum Force” – you have the right to use “ALL REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FORCE”, which is rather different.
Having said all of this, the whole can of worms stays firmly unopened if you can avoid conflict in the first place. This is why we teach self-protection as a wider subject, within which self-defence is the physical component. Most violent situations are avoidable if you know how to deal with them. Confrontation management, evasion, avoidance, defusion and so on are all valid ways to protect yourself and form an important part of what we teach. However good at physical self-defence you are, things can go wrong.
If you managed to avoid violence altogether then you can’t possibly lose.
