R (Collins) v SS Justice [2016] EWHC 33

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Alan, a homeowner worried about rising break-in incidents, has installed advanced security measures and taught his teenage children to remain in their rooms upon hearing any suspicious noise. Late one evening, he hears a commotion and spots a figure entering through an unsecured window. Fearing for his family’s safety, Alan retrieves a baseball bat and confronts the intruder. In the resulting scuffle, Alan strikes the intruder multiple times, causing serious but non-fatal injuries. The intruder later alleges that Alan’s conduct was excessive and violated the permissible standards of home defense.


Which statement best describes how a court would evaluate whether Alan’s use of force was “grossly disproportionate” under section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008?

Introduction

The legal rules on using force to protect oneself, particularly at home, cover several key ideas. R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) offers practical steps for courts to decide if a homeowner’s actions against an intruder were lawful. This case looks at section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, addressing situations where a homeowner’s reaction might seem stronger than necessary. The judgment clarifies the line between unlawful force (“grossly disproportionate”) and the wider rights given for defending homes. Knowing these distinctions helps enforce the law properly.

The Facts of R (Collins) v SS Justice

The case questioned a choice not to charge a homeowner (“B”) who harmed an intruder, Collins. Collins, affected by drugs and alcohol, entered B’s home at night and was found in the kitchen. A struggle followed, leading to serious head injuries for Collins. Collins claimed B’s actions crossed legal boundaries.

The Legal Framework: Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 sets out guidelines for judging force used in home defense. It offers legal safety to homeowners acting against intruders. A central part of section 76 is its treatment of force that may not exactly match the threat. While lawful force must still be reasonable, section 76 acknowledges the high stress of protecting a home.

The High Court’s Review of “Grossly Disproportionate” Force

In R (Collins), the High Court closely examined the term “grossly disproportionate.” The court decided that force used by a homeowner is not illegal just because it goes beyond what is strictly required. It must be severely excessive to break the law. This allows homeowners more freedom compared to other self-defense cases, recognizing their right to safeguard their property. The court emphasized that judging whether force is “grossly disproportionate” must account for the homeowner’s circumstances, including fear during the event.

Accounting for Sudden Pressure in Home Defense Cases

R (Collins) stressed the impact of immediate stress in these situations. The court noted that homeowners facing intruders act under high fear and urgency, which shapes their decisions. The law permits some flexibility when assessing these actions, as choices made quickly under pressure cannot be weighed like calm decisions. Earlier cases like Attorney General's Reference No 2 of 1983 [1984] QB 456 deal with preemptive force, but R (Collins) applies similar principles to home defense.

Impact and Subsequent Cases

R (Collins) has influenced later decisions on home defense. It establishes clear ways to evaluate force used by homeowners. Courts must consider all relevant factors, including the stress of protecting a home. For instance, R v Ray [2017] EWCA Crim 1391 followed R (Collins), maintaining the “grossly disproportionate” test. This creates consistent standards for homeowners while stopping extreme acts.

Conclusion

R (Collins) v SS Justice is a major judgment explaining legal boundaries for force in home defense. By separating disproportionate from grossly disproportionate force, the court gave a workable method for these cases. This decision, along with others like R v Ray, matches section 76 of the 2008 Act. It balances safeguarding homeowners with preventing excessive responses. The focus on immediate stress reflects the reality of home invasions, leading to fairer legal results. This case is essential for legal practitioners, police, and anyone needing straightforward rules for 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.

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 December 2024. 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.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

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