## Facts

- The case concerns a fatal police raid on the home of James Ashley in January 1998, prompted by intelligence suggesting Ashley was involved in criminal activity and armed.
- During the raid, police officer PC Sherwood shot and killed Ashley, claiming to believe Ashley was reaching for a weapon and acted in self-defence.
- In the subsequent criminal trial, PC Sherwood was acquitted of murder and manslaughter after the court accepted he acted under an honest, though unreasonable, belief that his life was in danger.
- Ashley’s family brought a civil action for battery and negligence against the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, questioning whether an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defence could absolve liability in tort.

## Issues

1. Whether an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defence constitutes a defence to battery in tort law.
2. Whether the civil standards for self-defence differ from those applied in criminal law.
3. Whether public authorities such as the police are subject to the same liability as private individuals in cases of intentional torts.
4. Whether negligence and intentional torts are to be treated differently regarding the frame of liability in police actions.

## Decision

- The House of Lords unanimously held the Chief Constable of Sussex Police liable for battery.
- It was ruled that an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defence does not justify intentional use of force in tort.
- The argument that criminal law principles for self-defence should apply equally in tort was rejected; stricter standards apply in civil claims to ensure victim compensation.
- The claim of negligence was dismissed, as the officer's actions, though intentional, were not judged as careless or reckless.

## Legal Principles

- An honest but unreasonable belief in imminent danger is insufficient to establish a defence to battery in tort law.
- There is a deliberate distinction between self-defence in criminal law, which allows an honest but mistaken belief regardless of its reasonableness, and tort law, which requires the belief to be reasonable.
- Intentional torts, such as battery, are subject to strict liability: the claimant must prove intentional application of force and the defendant must then justify the action.
- Public authorities, including the police, are held to the same tortious liability standards as private individuals when committing intentional torts.
- Negligence and intentional torts are distinct; negligence depends on breach of duty of care, while intentional torts focus on the act itself and justification.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords decision in Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police clarified that an honest but unreasonable belief in self-defence does not provide a defence to battery, reinforcing strict liability for intentional torts and subjecting public authorities to the same standards as individuals.


Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 25, [2008] 1 AC 962