## Facts

- The case concerns the boundaries of self-defence in English criminal law, particularly where the defendant’s own actions contributed to starting the conflict.
- The defendant, Keane, was involved in an incident where their behavior played a role in provoking a violent situation.
- The key question was whether Keane could rely on self-defence given their part in initiating the confrontation, and under what circumstances this defence is barred or permitted.
- The jury was tasked with assessing evidence regarding both the defendant’s actions and the proportionality of the force used in response.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who initiates or provokes an attack may rely on self-defence if the other party responds with force.
2. Under what circumstances the right to self-defence is restored to an initial aggressor due to the disproportionate response of the other party.
3. Whether the degree of force used and the possibility of retreat affect a defendant’s ability to claim self-defence.
4. The jury’s role in evaluating the applicability of self-defence in such situations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that self-defence is generally unavailable to those who start violence if the opposing party’s response is reasonable.
- Self-defence may only become available to the initial aggressor if the reaction of the other party is grossly disproportionate or extreme relative to the original provocation, effectively changing the roles between the parties.
- The judgment reaffirmed that using excessive force or failing to retreat (if safe to do so) undermines a self-defence claim.
- The Court stressed the importance of the jury's duty to consider the defendant’s prior conduct, the proportionality of force, and the possibility of retreat in determining whether self-defence is justified.

## Legal Principles

- Self-defence allows only reasonable and proportionate force to protect oneself or others from immediate harm.
- An initial aggressor is generally barred from relying on self-defence unless confronted with an utterly unreasonable or extreme response.
- The “sudden loss of control” exception may, in rare cases, revive the right to self-defence for an aggressor if circumstances drastically change.
- The duty to retreat is not absolute, but failing to withdraw when possible may suggest unreasonableness in the use of force.
- The assessment of whether the defendant genuinely believed force was necessary and acted reasonably is a matter for the jury.
- R v Keane is consistent with prior authorities, including R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377, Palmer v R [1971] AC 814, and R v Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816.

## Conclusion

R v Keane [2010] EWCA Crim 2514 defines the limitations of self-defence for those who initiate violence, requiring any subsequent defence claim to be grounded in disproportionate retaliation by the other party and assessed with regard to proportionality, necessity, and the opportunity for retreat. The case provides juries with clear guidance and affirms the proper boundaries of the defence in English law.
