R v Owino
The defendant's honest belief determines the circumstances, but whether the force used was reasonable is judged objectively.
Facts
Mr Owino was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on his wife. He said that he had used force only to restrain her and to prevent her from assaulting him. He argued that the judge should have directed the jury that he was entitled to use the degree of force that he honestly believed was reasonable.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. The court said that a person may use such force as is objectively reasonable in the circumstances as he subjectively believes them to be. The defendant's belief about the circumstances, such as whether he was being attacked, is judged subjectively, but the question of whether the amount of force he used was reasonable in those circumstances is decided by the jury, objectively. A defendant who honestly believes that the force he used was reasonable is not entitled to be acquitted if the jury considers it unreasonable.
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 Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482
- R v Conway [1989] QB 290
- R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
- R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412
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.
