Jitsuka: The online Ju-Jitsu Magazine
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
People keep asking me what is self-defence as seen by the law? Well here it is once and for all.
The degree of force permissible in self-defence has been defined by some legal bod as being-:
Such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime.
Clear... No? Well read on carefully then because I won't be going through it again.
When can you defend yourself? Do you have to wait until someone is actually throwing a punch at you? Apparently not, if someone says they are going to kick your head in that is enough and if a blow is thrown, a person isn't just limited to simply warding off a blow. But before you go out beating up every gobby little teenager, there are three catches to this train of thought.
You have to be in actual fear that they will carry out the threat. For example, a fifteen stone 2nd Dan animal from Keighly might be criticised if he tore apart a four foot tall, twelve year old little girl with pink ribbons in her hair for saying she was going to knock him out. (Not that it couldn't happen.)
A person should have demonstrated by their actions that they did not want to fight.
So saying Come on then you shirt-lifting w***er if you think your hard enough.
(As I've been training for 6 months and can have anyone
orange belts have been known to do) might not cut it with the
judge when trying to explain that the situation was unavoidable your Honour.
And finally battery must not be more than is reasonable or necessary for self-defence. It is both good law and good sense that a person who is attacked may defend themselves but may only do what is reasonably necessary. Trying to explain that it was all sensei Barry's fault for teaching you to always finish someone by jumping on their head when they are unconscious about twenty times, won't get you very far.
So this self defence lark is getting a little bit limiting really and this word reasonable keeps cropping up, so it may be relevant to look at this as well. There are no specific definitions or guide lines to "reasonable" it is entirely subjective. However a modicum of common sense is required when trying to work it out, people may wish to refer to this easy to use reference table of reasonable and unreasonable force.
| Someone pushes you in a pub and says that he is going to knock your head off because he does not like the look of you. He is so drunk he can hardly stand up. | |
|---|---|
| Reasonable | Unreasonable |
| Apologise for offending him and move to the other side of the bar. He is too drunk to bother with. | Gouge his eyes out so that he will never be bothered by you appearance again. |
| Someone is running a key down the side of your car. | |
| Reasonable | Unreasonable |
| Shout at him to leave your car alone and if possible restrain him until the local representative of the law enforcement community arrives to take charge of the situation. | Sneak up and knock him out with a brick, tie him up, get in you car, drive repeatedly over him saying You won't need the key because when I'm finished I'll slide you under the door!. |
| Someone comes running at you with a large kitchen knife upraised shouting threats to kill you. | |
| Reasonable | Unreasonable |
| Do whatever you can. Worry about reasonableness later. | Very Little. |
On a more serious note, if there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending themselves cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of their defensive action. If in a moment of unexpected fear or anguish a person had only done what they honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be the best evidence anyone could offer that reasonable force was used.
It is my opinion that the level of force used in defence is directly related to that used in attack and would escalate in response. However at the end of the day it must be noted that everyone must be accountable for his or her own actions and as long as you can justify your actions as reasonable then you will be okay.
Lister Worthington
Hi,
My law lecturer tells us that in the courts eyes, (British courts) the view of a case by a reasonable person, is defined by the guy on the top deck of the clapham bus...
Since the guy on the top deck of the Clapham bus will not have done jitsu, does that make us less or more reasonable?
It does make us more accountable, though maybe not me cos I'm just a yellow belt (7th Kyu), but that makes me more likely to get into legal difficulties if they are told I do jitsu, they will automatically class me as an expert
and so I would be expected by the jury to have been able to do more to diffuse the situation...
Does it automatically mean we are able to stop a mad-man with a knife without getting hurt or hurting the mad-man?
What if it's a 20 stone mad-man that just decided it's a girl... I like the way they scream...
and you just aren't up to any kind of defence...
How many dead jitsuka would it take for people to understand that we can learn the defences, but even then we have limits?
I'll bug my law lecturer about it soon, thanks for listening.
Sharon October 2002.
Dear Sharon,
It is not necessarily as bad as you think. It is much worse.
Remember that in court, each side will present their client as the victim. If you have any knowledge of martial arts, then the opposition will try to tell the court that your hands are deadly weapons.
That is why it is so important to understand the concept of a proportional response. You must show that it was you who was attacked and that you did the minimum you needed to save yourself.
The limits you describe are very important here. For example, strikes into the eyes or throat sound very vicious. But if you are a small female being attacked by a 20 stone man with a knife, these strikes may well be the only defenses you can use.
It really should be obvious to most juries though that knives kill. So if you have defended yourself and nobody is dead then you have acted reasonably.
Follow this link for an on-gong discussion about a real case on the Jitsu Grapevine.
Jitsuka October 2002.