Welcome

R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482

ResourcesR v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482

Facts

  • The defendant, a soldier stationed at a checkpoint in Northern Ireland, fired four shots at a speeding vehicle approaching the checkpoint.
  • The vehicle was subsequently found to have been stolen.
  • The fourth shot fired by the defendant resulted in the death of a passenger in the vehicle.
  • The defendant was charged with murder and claimed the shots were fired in self-defence.
  • Key considerations included the timing and circumstances of the shots, especially the fourth shot after the vehicle had passed the checkpoint.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant could successfully claim self-defence when force used exceeded what was necessary, particularly in relation to the fourth shot.
  2. Whether the law should distinguish between excessive force used in self-defence, prevention of crime, or apprehension of offenders.
  3. Whether self-defence could be maintained as a complete defence when the perceived threat had subsided.

Decision

  • The House of Lords upheld the conviction for murder.
  • The court determined that the fourth shot was not fired in self-defence, as the immediate threat had passed.
  • It was held that excessive or disproportionate force cannot be justified as self-defence.
  • The principle applied equally to self-defence, prevention of crime, and apprehension of offenders.
  • Self-defence is only a valid defence where the force used is reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the threat.
  • Using force after the immediate threat has subsided is not protected by self-defence.
  • The law does not distinguish between contexts (self-defence, prevention of crime, apprehension of offenders) when assessing the proportionality of force.
  • A use of force grossly exceeding what is required leads to criminal liability, including for murder.

Conclusion

The House of Lords confirmed that self-defence cannot excuse a use of force exceeding what is necessary to meet the perceived threat; excessive force results in criminal liability regardless of the context, reaffirming strict limits on lawful self-defence.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.