- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
not true. It is the same law that allows police to use a baton.
Last edited:
Bus driver sacked OMG
- Thread starter pete01
- Start date
Nonsense, we are talking about civilians chasing after suspects that are fleeing and no longer a threat...
The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.
The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)
- Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
- Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
- Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)
Who mentioned making an arrest? Not I. Just more waffle.
This however is unequivocal
The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.
The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)
- Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
- Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
- Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)
I know you haven't.
Reasonable force rules in UK law are applied to justify actions that would otherwise constitute criminal offences (such as assault or battery) when used for self-defence, defence of others, protection of property, prevention of crime, or lawful arrest.
The legal framework for reasonable force is not found in a single statute but is a combination of common law, specific legislation, and legal tests, particularly focusing on proportionality and necessity.
Key areas where these rules are applied include:
1. Statutory Legislation
- Criminal Law Act 1967 (Section 3): Permits any person to use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances" to prevent crime or assist in the lawful arrest of offenders.
- Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Section 76): Clarifies the operation of the defence of self-defence, stating that the degree of force must be reasonable based on the circumstances as the person believed them to be.
- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) (Section 117): Authorises police officers to use reasonable force if necessary in the exercise of their powers.
- Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Section 43): Amends the 2008 Act to provide higher protection for householders, allowing for "disproportionate" (but not "grossly disproportionate") force against intruders.
- Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 93): Authorises school staff to use reasonable force to prevent pupils from committing an offence, injuring themselves/others, or causing damage.
2. Common Law (Self-Defence)
- The common law recognizes the right to use reasonable force to protect oneself or another from imminent harm.
- The law does not require a person to wait for an attack to happen; a pre-emptive strike can be lawful.
- There is no legal duty to retreat, but a failure to do so when possible may be considered when determining if the force was reasonable.
3. Key Legal Principles for Assessment
Courts apply two main tests to determine if force was reasonable:
- Subjective Test: Did the person honestly and instinctively believe that using force was necessary in the heat of the moment? (Even if this belief was mistaken).
- Objective Test: Was the level of force used proportionate to the threat?.
4. Specific Scenarios
- Householder Defense: A householder can use force that is disproportionate, provided it is not "grossly disproportionate", to protect themselves or others from an intruder.
- Public/Street: In public, the force used must be both reasonable and proportionate to the threat.
- Citizen’s Arrest: Reasonable force may be used to detain someone, but only if they are caught in the act of an offence, or if there are reasonable grounds to suspect them of one.
- Physical Discipline of Children: In England, the "reasonable punishment" defence applies, but in Wales, all physical punishment of children is illegal.
- Continuing to attack someone after they are no longer a threat (e.g., they are incapacitated or fleeing).
- Pre-planned violence or traps.
- Retaliation or revenge.
- Using a weapon carried specifically for self-defence, as this is illegal in the UK.
It's interesting to note that 'disproportionate' force is allowed inside ones home.
However, once out in the street, the guidance become more restrictive. Chasing after someone and attacking them with a weapon, when the fleeing suspect is no longer a threat, is definitely not lawful, nor can chicken biker seem to find a way to demonstrate it.
However, once out in the street, the guidance become more restrictive. Chasing after someone and attacking them with a weapon, when the fleeing suspect is no longer a threat, is definitely not lawful, nor can chicken biker seem to find a way to demonstrate it.
Hilarious. I didn't realise you'd changed the subject to police pursuits and arrests.
What is NOT Reasonable Force:
- Continuing to attack someone after they are no longer a threat (e.g., they are incapacitated or fleeing).
- Pre-planned violence or traps.
- Retaliation or revenge.
- Using a weapon carried specifically for self-defence, as this is illegal in the UK.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
Its almost as if someone told you to read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76.
Doesn't sound like you understood it though.. again.
Nonsense
other than the CPS guidance, the opinion of a Barrister, and the statute which clearly says you are talking nonsense... again.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
Poor nosenout is now showing that he didn't know that section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 applies to both Police and civilians.Hilarious. I didn't realise you'd changed the subject to police pursuits and arrests.
The power of arrest for an indictable offence is not restricted to warranted Officers.
not relevant to your power under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
A piece of scaffolding grabbed in the heat of the moment to lawful pursue a criminal a is none of those things, even if the scaffolding is used on the person while they are running away.
Show it then including the law, the guidance, the source and the text.
I'll wait...
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 5,666
- Reaction score
- 764
- Country
OTOH:
He knew the thief hadn't put up a fight when he retrieved the necklace, but from the thief's POV that was a sudden and unexpected event.
He also knew that the thief returned to the bus instead of going his own way. It would be natural and reasonable for the driver to think that thief might have violent intentions.
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 5,666
- Reaction score
- 764
- Country
Do we know that?
Show it. Show where it demonstrates you can lawfully chase a fleeing scrote that is no longer a threat, with a weapon and attack him. I'll wait...
Different subject and nothing to do with what I said.
This is though...
The Criminal Law Act 1967 does not give you a blanket right to chase a fleeing suspect with a weapon. While Section 3 of the Act allows for the use of "reasonable force" to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest, using a weapon against a fleeing person is extremely likely to be deemed disproportionate, excessive, and illegal.
The Legal Position (Criminal Law Act 1967)
- Reasonable Force Only: Section 3(1) states: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders...".
- Proportionality is Key: The force used must match the threat. If a suspect is running away, they are generally not an immediate threat to you or others. Chasing them with a weapon implies a desire to harm or punish (revenge), rather than to stop a crime.
- Grossly Disproportionate Force: If you chase a suspect and use a weapon—especially if you cause serious injury—it will almost certainly be considered "grossly disproportionate," and you may face criminal charges, including wounding or assault, regardless of the fact that they stole from you.
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.
Chasing a fleeing suspect with a weapon and subsequently using it is highly likely to be considered malice, revenge, or retaliation rather than self-defence in legal terms, particularly if the initial threat has passed.
(Source - CPS)
More waffle and nothing to do with what I said.
For clarity, I never mentioned or questioned chasing after a suspect because you want to detain or arrest them.
I never mentioned the type of weapon chosen in the heat of the moment.
What I did say was it is not lawful to chase after a suspect that is no longer a threat and attack them with a weapon.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 26,400
- Reaction score
- 6,082
- Country
From Nosenout's own links Page 3 and 4 
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
Use of Force against Those Committing Crime
The public interest factors set out immediately above will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was, at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence. Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
Prosecutors should have particular regard to:
• the nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
• the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
• the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
• whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.
So thats Nosenout done up like a kipper from his own links.
But lets look at the actual law as I've been trying to get him to do since the start:
www.legislation.gov.uk
Use of force in making arrest, etc.
(1)A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
So thats any person, not just a police officer, can use reasonable force, irrespective of the person running away or being a threat, while they are not under the persons control.
Is that governed by the same common law basis for reasonable force in self defence? No
(2)Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.
Then we look the what happens if the person was completely mistaken about the circumstances and used excessive force:
www.legislation.gov.uk
(3)The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
Use of Force against Those Committing Crime
The public interest factors set out immediately above will be especially relevant where, as a matter of undisputed fact, the victim was, at the material time, involved in the commission of a separate offence. Common examples are burglary or theft from motor vehicles. In such cases, prosecutors should ensure that all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration in determining whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
Prosecutors should have particular regard to:
• the nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
• the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
• the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
• whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.
So thats Nosenout done up like a kipper from his own links.
But lets look at the actual law as I've been trying to get him to do since the start:
Criminal Law Act 1967
An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain...
(1)A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
So thats any person, not just a police officer, can use reasonable force, irrespective of the person running away or being a threat, while they are not under the persons control.
Is that governed by the same common law basis for reasonable force in self defence? No
(2)Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.
Then we look the what happens if the person was completely mistaken about the circumstances and used excessive force:
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
An Act to make further provision about criminal justice (including provision about the police) and dealing with offenders and defaulters; to make further provision about the management of offenders; to amend the criminal law; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to make...
Last edited:
I think that's an important distinction.
If you are chasing the culprit simply to boink them on the head with your weapon/object, then that is just revenge or punishment.
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2022
- Messages
- 5,666
- Reaction score
- 764
- Country
The bus company and the police came to different conclusions -
But the police conclusion might have been influenced by considerations of likely success of a prosecution, and in the round was it in the public interest to prosecute a bus driver for preventing a crime loss and thumping a known offender. It might be that the police and the bus company actually agreed on what the driver had done but the police decision was "We're calling it self defence. Can I go now, Inspector, got some villains to catch".
