I see you have typed just about everything except the scenario which I have repeatedly posted and which you seem to repeatedly ignore, which is to do with a fleeing suspect that is no longer a threat,...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:
Use of force in making arrest, etc.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...www.legislation.gov.uk
(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:
(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.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...
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)
Keep dithering waffling and deflecting boyo. The facts speak for themselves. You won't find a scenario, law, rule or caveat which makes attacking a fleeing suspect with a weapon, that is no longer a threat - lawful.
Ever.
