Deadly force may be used to stop a simple assault true or false

In Queensland the law permits a person to use reasonable force to physically defend themselves, another person or their property. The defence of self-defence requires the person to have acted in a way that was reasonable in the circumstances and for the defensive conduct to have been proportionate to the threat faced. The law does not expect people to be passive when their safety is threatened. If a person reasonably defends themselves, the law recognises their right to do so and does not punish them for this, even if the other person ultimately comes off worse than the person acting defensively.

If a person acts in self-defence in the heat of the moment when they are fearful of being hurt or killed, they are not expected to ‘weigh their response on a knife’s edge’ to determine the exact level of force that is reasonable in the circumstances. However, the defensive conduct must not be out of all proportion to the threat the person was facing.

Burden of proof

The defence of self-defence carries what is known as a reverse onus.  This means that once the defence of self-defence has been raised, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. The defence does not have to prove that the accused was acting in self-defence. If the prosecution cannot exclude the possibility that the accused did the act in self-defence, the accused will be acquitted.

Legislative provisions

Some of the common law principles surrounding self-defence have been codified in Queensland in the Criminal Code 1899.

Defence of property

Section 274 of the Criminal Code 1899 provides that it is lawful for a person to use reasonable force to resist a trespasser taking their property provided the person does not do grievous bodily harm to the trespasser.

Defence of premises

Section 277 and Section 278 provide that a person who is in possession of a land structure, a vessel or a place or who is entitled to control or manage a place may use reasonable force to prevent trespassing or to remove trespassers. However, the force used must not cause grievous bodily harm.

Section 267 provides that a person in peaceable possession of a dwelling may use reasonable force to prevent another person from unlawfully entering or remaining in the dwelling if the person believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is attempting to enter the dwelling with intent to commit a crime and that it is necessary to use force.

Self-defence and assaults

Self-defence can be used as a defence to an unprovoked assault (Section 271) or to a provoked assault (Section 272).  If the person defending themselves fears death or grievous bodily harm and they believe on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to use force in self-defence, they are not criminally responsible for using such force even if it results in death or grievous bodily harm to the other person.

The protection afforded by section 272 does not extend to a situation where the person started the fight with the intention of causing death or grievous bodily harm.

Defence of another

Section 273 provides that in any case where it is lawful for a person to use any force to defend themselves against an assault, it is also lawful for another person acting in good faith to use the same degree of force to defend them.

Murder and manslaughter

The common law provides that a person can be acquitted of murder on the basis of self-defence if they believed on reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what they did. In order to find a person guilty of murder where self-defence has been raised, a jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of the accused were not reasonable in self-defence.

Zecevic v DPP

The leading authority on the defence of self-defence is the 1987 High Court decision of Zecevic v DPP. In that case, the defendant killed his neighbour and ran the defence of self-defence. The accused maintained that his actions were necessary as he believed the victim had a knife and a shotgun in his possession, which justified the accused retrieving his gun and shooting the man dead.

The court expressed the formula for determining whether the defence of self-defence applies in any case as follows:

‘The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide.’

If you need legal advice on a criminal matter or any other legal matter please contact Go To Court Lawyers.

7am to midnight, 7 days

Call our lawyers NOW or, have our lawyers CALL YOU

The law of defense of others closely parallels the law of self-defense. This law allows you use force (even deadly force) to defend other people when you believe that they are in imminent danger.

This law can be used as a complete defense to criminal charges. But, the jury will have to make its own interpretations regarding whether the accused rightfully responded to imminent danger or not.

The law is applicable if: The defendant had believed that another person was facing danger that would cause grievous body harm or death,

• The defendant acted reasonably, that is any reasonable person under similar circumstances would have acted in a similar way, and
• The force used by the respondent was reasonable, or any reasonable person would have used similar force to stop the threat.

Like the law of self-defense, the doctrine of reasonableness is essential, and therefore the defendant's belief that it was necessary is not enough, it has to be proved that a reasonable person would have used similar force if they were facing similar threat.

The rule of the law of defense for others requires that the defendant must use the same force that the victim would have used in self-defense. If the victim would not have used such a force in self-defense, then the defendant has no defense and could be charged of criminal responsibility.

This rule is often referred as the rule of alter ego. For instance, if two people were rehearsing a fight for an acting session, and another person intervenes mistaking the scene as a fight and in the process causing injury on one person he thought was an aggressor.

The law of defense of others would not be applicable, and the defendant could be charged with causing bodily harm to another person. In this case, the victim was in no danger and the force used may not have been necessary. The rule of alter ego is parallel to the doctrine of reasonableness.

Using deadly force to defend others is justifiable as long as the defendant reasonably believed that the force was necessary in that situation. If the circumstances were of a simple assault then using deadly force would not be justified. So, depending on the circumstances using deadly force may or may not be justifiable. In other cases using deadly force is acceptable.

For the law of defense of others, following conditions must be met though not without limitations

• There should be some relationships between the defendant and the person he was defending,
• The defendant was not the one who provoked the fight or started the attack,
• The respondent’s knowledge will be used as the basis of the decision. For instance, if it later comes out that the aggressor was actually a serial killer, but the defendant was not aware at the time, then the new knowledge would not be used as a defense.
• If the defendant were in the process of committing crime at the time of the incident, then the defense would not apply if force was used to aid another person to resist arrest

Defense of others may be a defense in your case. A skilled attorney will assist you in determining the best strategy and defenses to use in your case. Contact us today.

Client Reviews

The Johnson Law Group handled a very important and delicate matter with professionalism and a caring manner. Attorneys were knowledgeable, in communications, and provided a top notch service to my need. I highly recommend the Johnson Law Group for your important legal issues. Hardy Jr.

Lauren Johnson was amazing. She explained everything in ways that were easily understood, & answered all of my question. She was respectful, but also open & honest. She started work on my case the first day we met & got results quickly. She demonstrated passion, concern, and showed true feeling for my situation. My expectations were greatly exceeded. I would say she has an incredible attention for detail, & has a real dedication to her work. Lauren Johnson would be my first recommendation to any of my family or friends similarly in need of legal assistance. Heather

I researched a lot of attorneys and had met with two attorneys before speaking with Ms. Johnson and retaining her. I was facing serious charges that could not be on my record, due to my job and was really scared. I felt hopeless & thought my life was ruined...until I found Ms. Johnson... A criminal defense client (drug case)

She is on point. She knows her field well. I have to give credit where credit is due, you deserve it Lauren Johnson... Anonymous, Victim of Domestic Violence

Lauren K. Johnson was my saving grace. I naively thought you were innocent until proven guilty. However, I soon discovered that CPS and family court does not see things that way... Mrs. G, a CPS client