R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin)

Facts

  • The case concerned a decision not to prosecute a homeowner (“B”) who caused serious head injuries to an intruder, Collins, during a nighttime struggle in the homeowner’s kitchen.
  • Collins, affected by drugs and alcohol, had entered B’s home illegally.
  • Collins claimed that B’s use of force exceeded lawful boundaries in detaining or defending against him.

Issues

  1. Whether section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 provides broader protection to homeowners using force against intruders.
  2. Whether force exceeding what is strictly required, but not grossly disproportionate, is unlawful in the context of home defense.
  3. How courts should assess the effect of immediate fear and stress on a homeowner’s decision to use force.

Decision

  • The High Court held that force used by a homeowner is not unlawful solely because it is more than strictly necessary; it must be grossly disproportionate to lose protection under section 76.
  • The court recognized greater latitude for homeowners in home defense compared to other self-defense situations, due to the circumstances of fear and urgency.
  • The test for “grossly disproportionate” force must consider the specific circumstances the homeowner faced, including their stress and fear at the time of the incident.

Legal Principles

  • Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 allows some leeway for homeowners using force against intruders, provided the force is not grossly disproportionate.
  • The rationale for this standard acknowledges the high stress and immediacy of home defense situations.
  • Precedents such as Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 1983 [1984] QB 456 and later R v Ray [2017] EWCA Crim 1391 recognize the distinction between anticipatory and defensive force, maintaining consistency in applying the “grossly disproportionate” test.
  • Courts must evaluate actions in context, including the homeowner’s perception and urgency during the incident.

Conclusion

R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) clarified that homeowners are permitted a wider margin of permissible force against intruders: only grossly disproportionate acts fall outside the protection of section 76 CJIA 2008. The case ensures legal standards reflect the realities of defending one’s home and provides clear guidance for courts, police, and the public on lawful home defense.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal