R v Hichens [2011] EWCA Crim 1626

Facts

• Hichens assaulted a police officer who was trying to prevent him from entering a flat.
• Hichens asserted that he acted in self-defence to avoid a violent confrontation with someone inside the flat.
• The force was applied to the police officer, who was not the source of the perceived threat.
• The defence relied on both common law self-defence principles and section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Issues

1. Whether self-defence applies when force is directed at an innocent third party based on a mistaken belief about the source of danger.
2. How necessity and proportionality requirements operate where an innocent third party is the subject of force.
3. Whether mistaken beliefs about the threat or its source affect the ability to claim self-defence.
4. How the treatment of incidents involving innocent third parties differs between self-defence and crime prevention claims.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal held that self-defence cannot be claimed where force is used against an innocent third party to avert an anticipated attack by another.
• A mistaken belief in the necessity for force may support a claim of self-defence, but a mistaken belief about the identity of the appropriate target generally defeats the claim.
• Force must be necessary and proportionate, with necessity relating to the actual person against whom force is used.
• The judgment distinguished the law of self-defence from the use of force to prevent crime under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

Legal Principles

• Self-defence under common law and section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 requires a genuine (subjectively held) belief in the necessity of force and that the force is proportionate as perceived by the defendant.
• A mistaken belief about the requirement of force can support the defence, but a mistake regarding the identity of the target usually defeats the claim.
• The prevention of crime is governed separately by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
• Courts distinguish between actions taken in self-defence (self-protection) and those aiming to prevent crime by third parties.
• The reasonableness of belief and the use of force are both assessed subjectively and objectively.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal confirmed that self-defence does not extend to situations where force is mistakenly used against an innocent third party, and clarified the boundary between self-defence and crime prevention in English law.