R v Clegg [1995] 1 AC 482

KEY POINTS

• The need for legal reform in cases of self-defense involving the use of excessive force resulting in death is a subject of ongoing debate and discussion within the legal community and among policymakers. The specific circumstances and outcomes can vary depending on jurisdiction and individual cases, making it a complex and evolving area of law.

FACTS

• The appellant, a soldier on patrol in Northern Ireland, encountered a speeding stolen car during their mission to apprehend joyriders. The soldier fired three shots at the car's windscreen in what they claimed was self-defense or defense of a colleague. Subsequently, a fourth shot was fired after the car had passed, fatally injuring one of the passengers.

• The appellant faced a murder charge. The trial judge, in a non-jury trial, accepted the defense's argument regarding the first three shots but concluded that the fourth shot had been a deliberate and aimed act with the intent to cause death or serious harm. Since the danger had dissipated when the car moved away, the judge convicted the appellant of murder.

• The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland upheld the conviction, citing the excessive and disproportionate use of force in the shot that caused the passenger's death. They certified a crucial legal question for consideration: whether a soldier on duty, possessing the intent for murder but claiming self-defense, albeit with excessive force, should be charged with murder or manslaughter.

• The appellant subsequently appealed to the higher court.

JUDGEMENT

• The appeal is dismissed.

• In cases where an individual employs a level of force in self-defense that exceeds what is warranted by the circumstances, they are to be held accountable for murder. There exists no differentiation between the application of excessive force in self-defense and the application of excessive force in the prevention of a crime or in the apprehension of an offender.

• The fact that the person employing such force is a soldier or a police officer acting within the scope of their duty does not alter this principle.

COMMENTARY

• The appellant, a soldier in Northern Ireland, fired shots at a speeding stolen car, claiming self-defense. One shot fired after the car passed killed a passenger. The appellant was convicted of murder, which the Court of Appeal upheld due to excessive force. 

• They raised a legal question: should a soldier charged with murder, who claims self-defense with excessive force, be charged with murder or manslaughter? The appeal was dismissed, affirming that excessive force in self-defense constitutes murder, regardless of the person's role as a soldier or police officer.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

• Defendant was a soldier on duty in NI. A car drove at him in the street and he fired 3 shots at the windscreen. He got out the way of the car and, once the car had passed, fired a fourth shot which killed a passenger. 

• Judge and CA accepted that first 3 shots were fired in self-defence but that the final shot was not in self defence since Defendant was no longer posed any danger by the car. 

• For the same reason HL dismissed the appeal, saying that where a greater degree of force was used than was reasonable to defend oneself, self-defence does not apply. 

• It also makes no difference whether Defendant is a private citizen or a policeman/soldier carrying out their duty.