When can self-defence be used as a defence?

Nov 03, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – When individuals seek to make personal judgments about matters of law, it is essential that they first develop an understanding of the law itself and the principles upon which it rests.

Legal reasoning is not guided by emotion, sympathy, or public opinion, but by established doctrines and carefully balanced rules designed to ensure fairness and justice. Without such understanding, commentary and conclusions risk being misguided, overlooking the structured reasoning that the courts must apply when determining guilt, innocence, or the justification for a particular act.

Self-defence is one of the most recognised and fundamental legal justifications in criminal law. It acknowledges that in certain circumstances, a person may lawfully use force, even deadly force, protect themselves from harm. The core issue is whether the response was reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced at the time of the incident. Under criminal law, self-defence is not an excuse for violence but a justification. It operates on the principle that individuals have the right to protect themselves, others, or their property from unlawful aggression.

The test for self-defence generally has two components: a subjective and an objective one. Subjectively, the accused must genuinely believe that the use of force was necessary to avert an imminent threat. Objectively, that belief must be reasonable in the eyes of an ordinary person placed in the same circumstances. A person invoking self-defence must demonstrate that they faced an imminent threat of unlawful harm. The threat must be immediate or impending, leaving little or no opportunity to retreat or seek other protective measures.

The law does not generally permit a person to claim self-defence in response to a threat that is merely speculative or remote. There must be clear evidence that the aggressor’s conduct created a real danger that could result in serious injury or death. In this regard, a cliam of self-defence must be assessed against the proportionality of his response to the threat he encountered. Proportionality is a central element in determining the legitimacy of self-defence. It requires that the force used be no more than what is reasonably necessary to repel the attack or prevent further harm.

Courts examine not just the outcome of the event but the circumstances leading up to it. The law focuses on what the accused reasonably perceived at the moment, rather than on hindsight judgment after the fact. A person under attack is not expected to weigh alternatives with perfect calmness. The law recognises that decisions made in the heat of confrontation may not be measured with clinical precision.

However, this allowance is not limitless. The defensive act must still be grounded in a rational and honest belief that one’s life or bodily integrity was in immediate jeopardy. Self-defence cannot be used as a shield for retaliation or revenge. Once the threat has ceased, any continued use of force becomes unlawful and cannot be justified. If, for example, the threatening act was receding or in retreat, then the subsequent response would not be seen as self-defence. At that point, the justification evaporates because the necessity for defensive action no longer exists.

Another crucial consideration is whether the person claiming self-defence provoked the confrontation. The right to self-defence is generally unavailable to an initial aggressor unless they clearly withdraw from the conflict and communicate that withdrawal to the other party. The law imposes a duty of reasonableness and restraint even in tense situations. It expects individuals to respond in a manner that a prudent person would consider necessary to protect themselves, not to exact vengeance.

In homicide cases, when self-defence is raised, the burden initially rests on the accused to provide some evidence supporting the claim. Once that threshold is met, the prosecution bears the responsibility to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. This safeguard ensures that individuals are not unjustly convicted when they acted out of genuine fear for their safety. It also maintains the balance between the right to self-protection and society’s interest in preventing unnecessary violence. The court will typically consider several factors in assessing a self-defence claim. These include the nature of the threat, the immediacy of danger, the availability of alternative options, and the proportionality of the response.

Eyewitness testimony, surveillance footage, and forensic evidence can all play crucial roles in determining whether the accused’s belief in the necessity of force was reasonable. The focus remains on whether the response matched the perceived level of threat. The doctrine of self-defence reflects a careful balance between individual rights and societal order. It acknowledges that people must be allowed to defend themselves but insists that such defence must be both necessary and proportionate.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Criminal Law, Defence, Peeping Tom, self-defence

---