Use of Force Practice Questions

DC Webb is reviewing a case where Garner was attacked in the street by Holloway. Rather than running away, Garner stood his ground and punched Holloway, breaking his nose. Garner argues self-defence. The prosecution argues Garner should have retreated and that failure to do so means the force was unreasonable. Which of the following correctly states the position on the duty to retreat?

1. AThere is a duty to retreat in English law where retreat was a reasonable option - a defendant who could safely have avoided the confrontation cannot rely on self-defence if they chose to stand their ground instead.
2. BThere is no duty to retreat in English law - a defendant who stood their ground rather than retreating is not automatically disentitled from relying on self-defence. However, the opportunity to retreat is a factor the jury may consider in assessing whether the force used was reasonable.
3. CThere is no duty to retreat in English law - the opportunity to retreat is completely irrelevant to whether self-defence is established and the jury must not consider it.
4. DThere is no duty to retreat in English law for householder cases under s.76(5A) CJIA 2008 - but outside the home a defendant who could have retreated must do so before using force.

PC Dixon investigates a use of force complaint. Harvey used force against Parker to prevent Parker stealing a bicycle. Harvey knocked Parker unconscious with a single heavy blow. Harvey says he was preventing a crime. PC Dixon considers s.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Which of the following most accurately states the legal position?

1. AHarvey's force is lawful under s.3(1) CLA 1967 if it was reasonable in the circumstances - the question of reasonableness takes into account the crime being prevented and what force was honestly believed to be necessary.
2. BHarvey's force is lawful under s.3(1) CLA 1967 if it was proportionate to the crime being prevented - the test is strictly proportionate, meaning serious force may only be used to prevent serious crime.
3. CHarvey's force is lawful under s.3(1) CLA 1967 if it was reasonable in the circumstances - the question of reasonableness is assessed solely by reference to what force Harvey himself believed was necessary.
4. DHarvey's force is lawful under s.3(1) CLA 1967 if it was reasonable in the circumstances - but the section does not permit any force to prevent a minor property offence, as such force can never be reasonable.