## Facts

- Tony Martin was a homeowner who used force against intruders inside his home.
- The case focused on whether Martin’s actions amounted to reasonable self-defence or excessive force when protecting his property and himself from an imminent threat.
- The circumstances involved home intrusion, contrasted with public self-defence scenarios.
- The judgment referenced the psychological effects and increased risks faced by individuals defending their homes.

## Issues

1. Whether force used by a homeowner against an intruder should be evaluated differently than self-defence in public settings.
2. How courts should define and determine "excessive" force in the context of home defence.
3. The proper role of the jury in assessing the reasonableness of a defendant’s belief in imminent threat during a home intrusion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal recognised home defence as a distinct legal category due to the unique pressures and risks involved.
- It was held that while homeowners possess greater latitude in acting in self-defence, the level of force used must still be objectively reasonable.
- The decision clarified that a homeowner’s response need not exactly correspond to the threat and need not be perfectly measured under stress.
- The jury is tasked with determining the reasonableness of force, considering both the situation and the homeowner’s perception at the time.
- The case’s principles were later reflected in section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

## Legal Principles

- Under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, "reasonable force" may be used in the prevention of crime.
- Home defence is considered a distinct legal context, acknowledging heightened psychological impact and risk for occupants.
- Force used by homeowners may be deemed reasonable even if disproportionate, provided the homeowner genuinely believed it necessary.
- Jury evaluation must consider the urgency and stressful circumstances confronting homeowners during such incidents.

## Conclusion

The decision in R v Martin (Tony) [2001] EWCA Crim 2245 marked a significant development in self-defence law, establishing home defence as a separate context, expanding the scope of "reasonable force" for homeowners, and reaffirming the jury’s critical role in assessing such defences, now echoed in statute and later case law.
