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.

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