Preemptive Self Defence

Canacourse

I posted a question in the Marshal Arts forum about the legal right to preemptively attack a person if threatened. Apparently the LAW in the UK allows this.

Please take a look & reply to the original post.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310843

impr0v

Assault in this country is not only the application of force but also, as defined by section 2 of the non-fatal offences against the person act:

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

( a ) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

( b ) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

Therefore, if you reasonably suspect that you were going to be subjected to force, and it's an honestly held belief, it is lawful to strike first in self defence.

Any force you do use in such a scenario must be reasonable. To answer the question posed in your original post, i.e. if you killed someone in self-defence, would it be murder; again, the force you employ must be reasonable in the circumstances. The test for reasonableness in the circumstances is subjective, if I recall correctly, and the defence of necessity would apply if you were prosecuted for murder. The court will first assess if some force was objectively necessary (would a reasonable man have believed it was necessary in the circumstances) and, if it was, was the force actually employed reasonable. If you used fatal force and knew it to be unreasonable, you would be guilty of homicide. If you used fatal force and it was unreasonable, but you honestly thought it was reasonable, you'd be guilty of manslaughter.

It is possible that a person trained in martial arts will be expected to exercise a greater degree of restraint in the face of a possible threat, given that he or she is capable of defending themselves, and would also be expected to apply any necessary force more carefully, given that he or she would possibly have the skills to seriously injure someone if they so desired.

It used to be a requirement that, faced with a threat you retreated as far as possible, but it's no longer the case. However, the degree to which one retreated is still a factor that can be considered by the court.

Basically, avoid confrontation if you can. If you can't, and you honestly believe you going to be attacked in seconds, then use as little force as you can to protect yourself from that threat.

The statutory provisions in relation to justifiable use of force are set out in section 18 of the above quoted act and are too long to quote here.

Tom Young

Actually further defences are listed in Sections 18 to 22 of the NOAPA 1997.

dermot_sheehan

The test is you are allowed to use force that is reasonable in the circumstances as the individual perseives them in self defence, defence of another, to protect property or prevent crime or carry out a lawful arrest.

As noted above the offence of assault can take place without the application of force but by the mere creating of an apprehension that force will be applied. Whether you can use self defence in these circumstances depends on whether your actions are objectively reasonable.

Planxty

impr0v wrote: »

The test for reasonableness in the circumstances is subjective, if I recall correctly, and the defence of necessity would apply if you were prosecuted for murder.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but necessity is not a defence for murder.

Rhonda9000

Planxty wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong, but necessity is not a defence for murder.

Correct- necessity does not excuse an offence and is not a good defence (in criminal law).