R v Clegg
A soldier who used excessive force in self defence was guilty of murder, because there is no partial defence of excessive self defence.
Facts
Private Lee Clegg was a soldier on patrol in Northern Ireland at a checkpoint. A car drove through the checkpoint at speed, and soldiers fired at it. Clegg fired four shots, the last of which was fired after the car had passed, when there was no longer any danger to him or his colleagues, and killed a passenger. He was convicted of murder. He argued that, since he had been entitled to use some force, he should be convicted only of manslaughter.
Legal principle
The House of Lords upheld the conviction. Lord Lloyd said that there is no rule in English law that a person who uses excessive force in self defence, or in preventing crime, is guilty only of manslaughter. Self defence is a complete defence, which succeeds only if the force was reasonable, and if it was not, the defendant is guilty of murder if he had the necessary intent. Any change in the law would be a matter for Parliament. Clegg's murder conviction was later quashed in the light of fresh forensic evidence.
Related cases on defences: self defence, duress and necessity
- Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) [2001] Fam 147
- Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130
- R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin), [2016] QB 862
- R v Bowen [1997] 1 WLR 372
- R v Conway [1989] QB 290
- R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
- R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412
- R v Graham [1982] 1 WLR 294
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
