## Facts

- The case concerned a police officer, Mr. Beckford, who fatally shot a suspect while on duty in response to a report of an armed individual threatening their family.
- Upon police arrival, the suspect fled and was pursued by Beckford and other officers.
- The prosecution claimed the suspect was unarmed and had surrendered before being shot.
- Mr. Beckford asserted the suspect was armed, had fired at the police, and was killed when officers returned fire in self-defence.
- The trial judge directed the jury that the defendant’s belief in the danger had to be both honest and reasonable for self-defence to be available.
- Mr. Beckford was convicted, and his appeal to the Jamaican Court of Appeal was dismissed on the basis that belief must be reasonable.
- The case advanced to the Privy Council to resolve whether self-defence requires a reasonable or merely honest belief.

## Issues

1. Does the defence of self-defence require that the defendant’s belief in the threat be both honest and reasonable, or is an honest belief alone sufficient?
2. Should the assessment of reasonable force be made according to the circumstances as the defendant perceived them, even if mistaken?
3. What is the appropriate legal standard for mistaken belief in self-defence cases?

## Decision

- The Privy Council held that self-defence is to be assessed by reference to the defendant’s honest belief of the circumstances, regardless of whether that belief was reasonable.
- The court stated that a defendant acting under a mistake as to facts must be judged according to their mistaken belief, even if unreasonable.
- It was emphasised that reasonableness is relevant to whether the belief was in fact honestly held, but not a strict requirement.
- The prior conviction was overturned, as the jury had not been properly directed on this test of subjective belief.
- The decision relied on and affirmed R v Williams (Gladstone), which also prioritised the defendant’s point of view.

## Legal Principles

- The core test for self-defence is subjective: did the defendant honestly believe in the necessity to use force, regardless of whether that belief was reasonable.
- The force used in response must be reasonable to the threat as perceived by the defendant.
- An honest but mistaken belief may support a defence even if such belief was unreasonable; reasonableness is a factor for the jury to assess sincerity, not a legal requirement.
- The defendant’s perception of the threat is determinative; the objective circumstances are secondary.

## Conclusion

The ruling in Beckford v R [1988] AC 130 established that a defendant is entitled to be judged based on their honest belief in the circumstances, irrespective of whether that belief was reasonable, as long as the perceived use of force was itself proportionate to that belief.
