R (Collins) v The Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin)

Section 76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 allows householders to use force that is not proportionate if it is reasonable given the circumstances as they believed them to be.

• This is intended to provide greater protection for householders in self-defence situations.

• Section 76(5A) does not extend the legal scope of self-defence but emphasizes that the force used by a householder does not need to be proportionate to be deemed reasonable as long as it is reasonable in the perceived circumstances.

The court found that Section 76(5A) does not breach Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to life.

The law's emphasis on reasonableness rather than strict proportionality is compatible with the ECHR standards.

The case concerns the interpretation and application of Section 76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which addresses self-defence in householder cases.

• This section was introduced to clarify the legal standard for force used by householders to defend their homes.

Mr. Collins ( “Applicant”) was involved in an incident where he used force to defend his home against an intruder.

• The specifics of the incident included the use of force that might be considered disproportionate from an objective standpoint, but Mr. Collins believed his actions were necessary given the situation.

Mr Collins challenged the application of Section 76(5A), arguing that it could lead to the unjustifiable use of disproportionate force and might be incompatible with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to life.

The challenge was brought as a judicial review against the Secretary of State for Justice, questioning whether the law's application was consistent with ECHR standards.

The court found that Section 76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 does not alter the law on self-defence but emphasizes the requirement that the degree of force used by a householder must be reasonable in all the circumstances as the householder believed them to be.

The judgment clarified that while the force used might be disproportionate when judged objectively, it could still be considered reasonable if it aligns with the householder's belief about the situation.

The court concluded that Section 76(5A) is compatible with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to life.

The court noted that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently held that reasonableness, as applied in self-defence cases, meets the requirements of Article 2(2) when assessed in the context of the Defendant's belief about the circumstances.

The court addressed the role of parliamentary materials in the judicial review process. It emphasized that while parliamentary privilege protects the proceedings of Parliament from judicial scrutiny, courts can refer to parliamentary materials to understand the context and rationale behind legislation.

• However, they must refrain from questioning their accuracy or using them to assess the legislation's compatibility with human rights directly.

The court decided not to consider the Joint Committee on Human Rights report or the speeches in the House of Lords in determining the compatibility of Section 76(5A) with Article 2 ECHR.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court upheld the legality of Section 76(5A) and its interpretation, affirming that it provides a reasonable framework for self-defence in householder cases and is consistent with human rights standards.

The case offers a significant insight into the intersection of self-defence laws and human rights considerations in the UK.

• At its core, this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 76(5A) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

Section 76(5A) was introduced to clarify how self-defence is applied in householder cases, where individuals defend their homes against intruders.

• The provision emphasizes that the degree of force used by a householder need not be proportionate as long as it is reasonable given the circumstances as perceived by the householder.

• This means that even if the force used might be considered excessive by objective standards, it may still be deemed reasonable if it aligns with what the householder believed was necessary to defend themselves.

The case illustrates the boundaries of judicial review in relation to legislative matters.

• While courts can review legislation for compatibility with human rights standards, they must respect the separation of powers and avoid delving into the accuracy or intention behind parliamentary discussions.

• This distinction helps maintain the integrity of both the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The decision, in this case, reaffirms the principle that self-defence laws must be both practical and respectful of human rights.

• By upholding the compatibility of Section 76(5A) with Article 2 ECHR, the Court supports a legal framework that accommodates the complexities of real-life defensive actions while ensuring adherence to fundamental rights.

This case serves as a vital reference for understanding the balance between legal protections for householders and the overarching human rights standards.