statutoru confusion

• the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 was passed to clarify the common law on self defence. section 76 (6) of this act of parliament requires that the amount of force used in the circumstances will be as the defendant believed them to be will be reasonable.
• However, the Crime and Courts Act 2014 now gives a wider defence to householders where an intruder enters their property. The householder can use the defence of self defence provided the degree of force was not 'grossly disproportionate'.
• for other cases, the degree of force that was used must not have been 'disproportionate'. The case of r v Ray tried to assist judges summing up to a jury who have to consider the application of eidene and words that have small differences in meaning. it is vital when summing up in cases where the householder's defence is raised that the judge explain to the jury that the law gives a little More protection to a householder in his own home.
• However, it must be made clear to the jury that the use of force that was grossly disproportionate would never be reasonable- this raises questions:

  1. Should the judge use everyday language to help the jury decide whether on the evidence, he prosecution has proved that the degree of force used was unreasonable?
  2. would it be helpful to spell out the kind of circumstances that might show the degree of force used by a householder was reasonable?
  3. Should every case use a common formula of words?