The Law and Self Defence

We have recently been running a ladies only self defence course in a location in North Hampshire combining a mixture of practical self defence techniques and also the non physical ways to consider self protection. There are some general tips for self protection here.

On occasion we do see stories in the press where people have gone over the top, like the 2 brothers from High Wycombe who chased a burglar from their house and then beat him very badly and were in turn then charged and jailed for the use of excessive force.

See here for more information on this story

The Crown Prosecution Service gives the following definitions are to what constitutes reasonable force:

The Law and Evidential Sufficiency

• Self-defence is available as a defence to crimes committed by use of force.
• The basic principles of self-defence are set out in Palmer v R, [1971] A.C 814; approved in R v McInnes, 55 Cr. App. R. 551; see also (Archbold 19-41)
  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.
• The common law approach as expressed in Palmer v R and other authorities, is also relevant to the application of Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (Archbold 19-39):
  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.
• Section 3 applies to the prevention of crime and effecting, or assisting in, the lawful arrest of offenders and suspected offenders. There is an obvious overlap between self-defence and section 3. However, section 3 only applies to crime and not to civil matters so, for instance, it cannot afford a defence in repelling trespassers by force, unless the trespassers are involved in some form of criminal conduct.

Reasonable Force

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

• self-defence; or
• defence of another; or
• defence of property; or
• prevention of crime; or
• lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

• was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? And;
• was the force used reasonable / proportionate in the circumstances?

Courts Decisions

The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276), (R v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367) and (Archbold 19-49).

To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in Palmer v R, 1971 A.C. 814;

If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken…

The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable (R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL) and (Archbold 19-41).

However, where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

In R v O’Grady 85 Cr App R 315 it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication.

SUMMARY

“Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states “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.”

The Law & Self-Defence: Knowing Your Rights

At Shin Gi Tai Martial Arts Academy, we believe that true self-protection starts with knowledge. Whether you’re attending our Ladies Only courses or our regular sessions at our Martial Arts Academy in Winchester, understanding the legal “line in the sand” is just as important as knowing how to strike or escape.

The Golden Rule: Reasonable Force

The UK law is actually very common-sense. It says that if you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself. But, you can only do what is reasonably necessary.

To decide if force was “reasonable,” the law asks two simple questions:

1. Was it necessary? (Did you actually need to use force at all?)
2. Was it proportionate? (Was your reaction balanced against the threat?)

The 2026 Legal Reality: Three Things You Need to Know

1. You don’t need a “perfect” reaction
   The law (via the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) recognizes that in a moment of “unexpected anguish,” you can’t be expected to weigh your actions to a “nicety.” If you did what you honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that is the strongest evidence that you acted legally.
2. The “Householder” Difference
   If you are defending yourself against an intruder inside your own home, the law gives you more “leeway.” Your actions only become illegal if they are grossly disproportionate. In the street, the test remains “proportionate.”
3. You don’t have to wait to be hit
   You do not have to wait for a blow to land before defending yourself. If you have an honest belief that you are about to be attacked, you are entitled to strike first to protect yourself (this is often called a pre-emptive strike).

Where People Get Into Trouble

Problems usually arise when “defence” turns into “revenge.” Chasing someone down the street after the threat has ended or using excessive force once an attacker is no longer a danger is where the law stops protecting you.

A famous example is the 2009 case in High Wycombe, where brothers were jailed after chasing a burglar away and then beating him severely. Once the threat is gone, your right to use force ends.

Summary: Stay Safe, Stay Legal

• Avoid if possible: Your first goal is always to get away safely.
• Act instinctively: Do what you honestly feel is needed to stop the threat.
• Stop when safe: Once the danger has passed, stop using force.