was the force proportionate

• The reasonableness of the force used by someone is considered on the facts as they were, or if the defendant made a mistake, then on the facts that the defendant genuinely made them to be.
• The basic rule on deciding if the force used was proportionate is set out in section 76 (6) of the criminal justice and immigration act 2008- unless it is a householder case, disproportionate force will not be reasonable. Householders are allowed to use disproportionate force, which is not grossly disproportionate, this allows additional protection for house holders.
• The test set out in section 76 (6) of the Criminal Justice and immigration act 2008 balances the risk of harm to the defendant with the risk of harm to the victim- it also takes into account:

  • Section 76 (7) (A)- a person with a legitimate purpose might not be able to work out the exact measure of any necessary action
  • Section 76 (7) (B) evidence of the defendant doing only what they honestly thought was necessary for their legitimate purpose shows they took reasonable action
• when deciding if the force was proportionate according to section 76 (6) of the criminal justice act 2008, it also must be considered that:

  • there is no simple reckoning of equality. it will not be the case that a fist fight must be fought with fists. it may be proportionate for a weapon to be used in extreme cases where he defendant is attacked without the use of a weapon.
  • Initially, proportionate force may develop into disproportionate force when the defendant doesn't stop after the danger has been removed or passed
  • the defence is lost completely when the force used is disproportionate (or grossly disproportionate in householder cases)
• what is the significance of the case of r v clegg?

  It is an example of danger passing, and as such excessive force being used
• which case is an example of danger passing, and as such excessive force being used?

  r v clegg