Private Defences under Law of Torts
Private Defence under Law of Torts
What is Private Defence?
Private Defence (or Self-Defence) is a legal principle that allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property, or others, against an unlawful attack or threat. It is a justification or defence in tort law that negates liability for acts that would otherwise be wrongful.
In tort law, the defence of private defence applies primarily to torts involving personal injury or property damage such as trespass, assault, or battery.
1. Essentials of Private Defence
For an act to be protected under private defence, the following elements must generally be satisfied:
a. Threat or Imminent Danger
There must be an imminent or unlawful threat or attack on a person or property.
The danger should be real and immediate.
b. Necessity
The act of defence must be necessary to prevent the harm.
No alternative means to avoid the harm should be available.
c. Proportionality (Reasonable Force)
The force used must be proportionate to the threat.
Excessive or unreasonable force is not justified.
d. No Pretext for Revenge
The defence cannot be used as a pretext for retaliation or revenge.
e. Defense of Self, Others, or Property
The defence can be exercised to protect:
Oneself,
Another person,
Property (land or goods).
2. Scope of Private Defence in Tort
Protection of Person: Defending oneself or others against assault, battery, or other physical harm.
Protection of Property: Defending land, goods, or property from trespass, theft, or damage.
Prevention of Crime: Preventing an unlawful act or criminal offense.
3. Limits to Private Defence
Excessive Force: Use of force beyond what is necessary or reasonable is not protected.
No Defence if Danger is Avoidable: If the harm can be avoided by retreat or other means, private defence may not apply.
Initial Aggressor: A person who starts the fight cannot claim private defence unless the other party responds with disproportionate force.
4. Relevant Case Laws
a. Ashby v. White (1703)
An early English case that established that a person has a right to defend themselves against unlawful acts.
Although a criminal case originally, the principle underpins tortious private defence.
b. Bird v. Holbrook (1825)
Defendant set spring-guns in his property to defend against trespassers.
Court held that setting deadly traps was excessive and not justified as private defence.
Demonstrates limits on the nature of force used.
c. Hall v. Collins (1934)
A case where reasonable force was used to prevent theft of property.
The court recognized private defence of property if force is reasonable.
d. Cockcroft v. Smith (1705)
Defendant used force to defend himself from attack.
The force was deemed reasonable, and the defence of private defence was allowed.
e. Palmer v. R. (1971)
A leading case on proportionality.
The court ruled that the defendant’s perception of threat and the force used to repel it will be judged according to the circumstances, not strictly by hindsight.
5. Difference Between Private Defence in Tort and Criminal Law
In criminal law, private defence can be a complete defence to criminal charges.
In tort law, private defence justifies what would otherwise be a tortious act (like battery or trespass) and serves as a defence to liability.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Definition | Right to use reasonable force to prevent unlawful harm. |
| Essentials | Imminent threat, necessity, reasonable force, no revenge. |
| Scope | Defence of self, others, and property. |
| Limits | Force must be proportional; no defence for initial aggression. |
| Remedies | Acts done in private defence are not tortious, so no damages payable. |
| Key Cases | Bird v. Holbrook, Hall v. Collins, Palmer v. R., Cockcroft v. Smith. |
Conclusion
Private Defence in tort law is a vital principle that protects individuals from being held liable for acts done to prevent unlawful harm to themselves, others, or their property. However, it must be exercised reasonably and proportionately. Excessive or retaliatory force falls outside this defence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments