R v Williams (Gladstone)
A defendant who uses force in self defence or defence of another is judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be, even if his belief was unreasonable.
Facts
Mr Williams saw a man, Mason, dragging a youth along the street and hitting him. Mason was in fact trying to arrest the youth, who had just robbed a woman, and falsely told Mr Williams he was a police officer. Mr Williams did not believe him and, thinking the youth was being assaulted, hit Mason, injuring him. He was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, after the judge directed the jury that his mistaken belief had to be reasonable.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Lord Lane CJ said that the defendant must be judged on the facts as he honestly believed them to be, whether or not his belief was reasonable. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of the defendant's belief is material to whether he actually held it, but if he genuinely held it, he is entitled to rely on it. The question is then whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be. This principle is now in section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
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.
