# New Zealand Law/Criminal/SelfDefence
## Requirements

* Use of force or the threat of force in the defence of self or another.
* Force that defendant believes in the circumstances to be reasonable.
* Elements of the offence must require force.
* The prosecution must first prove prima facie case involving mens rea.

## R v Tavete

* Held
    Judge must put defence to jury which is capable of being supported by evidence, even if for tactical reasons defence did not.

## R v Ranger

* Facts
* During argument with boyfriend, defendant stabbed and killed him.
* Defence claimed provocation.
* Defence did not raise self-defence although there was evidence that defendant believed boyfriend was going for gun and would shoot her and son.
* Held
* If the accused really believed in threat, then it would be going too far to say that a jury could not entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether a pre-emptive strike with a knife was reasonable force in the circumstances.
* It is sometimes tactically difficult for the defence to run 2 defences. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the trial judge to place before the jury any defence capable of being supported by the evidence.

## R v Wang

* Facts
* Husband passed out, D stabbed him 4 times.
* Husband had threatened to kill her and family, and was also blackmailing sister.
* On appeal, defendant said judge should have put self-defence to jury.
* Held
* Impossible for jury to find that force reasonable in the circumstances, however a pre-emptive strike not always unreasonable.

## R v Savage

* Facts
* Savage was a patched gang member. He and others got into a fight with O’Leary. Savage stabbed O’Leary and fled.
* Evidence was that O’Leary had been causing trouble all day.
* Savage claimed self-defence or provocation.
* Held
* When a knife is used, the accused must be under real threat, not merely think that there might be some future danger.
* Whether a person should retreat from a fight depends on what is reasonable in the circumstances.
* It is a misdirection to say either that (i) provocation must occur immediately before killing or (ii) that the def’s action must be proportionate to the provocation.

## R v Thomas

* Facts
* Police trying to arrest suspect.
* Intoxicated defendant thought police were using excessive force, physically intervened.
* Held
* Mistaken belief (that force used by police is unlawful) must be honest, need not be reasonable.
* Mistake of fact.
* Self defence available in defence of stranger.
* Not confined to defence against unlawful assault.

## R v Kneale

* Facts
* Defendant left daughter with ex-wife to go fishing. On return, K and ex had fight. K assaulted wife.
* Claimed self-defence - protecting daughter from wife.
* Held
* Judge wrong not to direct jury on self-defence but the threshold for psychological injury is high (fear, panic or grief is not enough).
* Misdirection made no difference. There was not enough evidence of threat, after all, he left daughter with ex-wife hours earlier to go fishing.

## R v Howard

* Held
* Self defence is not confined to situations involving threats of death or serious bodily harm.
* The fact that there is another motivation, eg spite or anger, does not rule out self-defence. In Howard’s case, also had fear of future assault.
* Force that is reasonable may not be proportionate (eg if accused has no real choice).

## R v Bridger

* Held
* It will often be necessary to assess whether defendant acting in self-defence by what accused did in response.
* Court declined to opine about whether the circumstances - as the defendant believes them to be - must be based on a sane belief.
* Trial judge may withdraw a defence from jury if it is impossible for a reasonable jury to regard accused’s reaction as reasonable. Withdrawal of a defence is not a denial of the right to trial by jury.