Bus driver sacked OMG

[noseall]

Are you suggesting the same rules for reasonable force are applied? yes or no. This seems to have been your argument thus far.

Yes.

It remains a fact that your rights to stop a crime/criminal are defined in sec 3 as I have been saying all along

Nor have I argued differently. Nor is that anything to do with chasing someone with a weapon after the threat has passed.

, rather than the common law right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, which is the "wrong law.

Which is wholly irrelevant to the Criminal Law Act 1967 and irrelevant to and nothing to do with the fact that it is not lawful to chase after a suspect with a weapon once the threat has ceased. Nor will you be able to show otherwise. Nor have I mentioned common law, I don't know why you keep motioning it being the 'wrong law' either nor is relevant to this....


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.

What if I chase them as they run off?
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)

 

[MNW67]

I’m assuming the cctv is not public or have people seen it?

I've not been able to find it.

 

[King Billy]

I am only trying to explain the legal principles involved.

I haven't really tried to apply them to this particular case.

There seems to me to be a conflation of two cases.
1. The bus driver, and 2. Mottie chasing a failed potential thief.
In the first instance, the bus driver had already used reasonable force to apprehend the thief, and recover the stolen property.
During that process it's reasonable for the bus driver to have assessed the thief's probability to resort to violence, which appeared to be low.
Indeed the thief returned to apologise. I'm sure he didn't do that in total silence.
Any court case would hang on the credibility of the bus driver's account, compared to the CCTV recordings, events leading up to the incident, and any witness statements, as to whether reasonable force was employed in self defence.

On the Mottie incident, it sounds to me as though Mottie went above and beyond the protection of any property and the attempt at apprehending the suspect. There was never any suggestion of self defence. I suspect that had the 'crack on the elbow' resulted in broken bones, Mottie might have found himself charged with assault, and even carrying a weapon.

 

[noseall]

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

...and bus drivers get your daughters home safe.

 

[King Billy]

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

And a few civilian bystanders in the process. I believe it's called collateral damage.
Vigilante collateral damage wouldbe far worse.

 

[noseall]

rather than the common law right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, which is the "wrong law."

I'm still baffled by your 'wrong law' gibberish.

Earlier in the thread you started with your wrong law nonsense, and was asked to define. You stated the The Criminal Law Act 1967 applies. You even went on to belittle and told folk you'd explain both paragrphs etc.

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.

What if I chase them as they run off?
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)



Then you started waffling about common law. The same threshold applies regards reasonable force, here too.

So, I ask again, in relation to it being unlawful (across the board) someone chasing after a suspect with a weapon, after the threat has ceased - how does this become 'wrong law dummy'

It make no sense.

 

[motorbiking]

OK last time, for the extremely hard of thinking:

Yes.

Good answer, it is of course incorrect.

The use of force as it relates to self defence (common law) is different to the use of force for making an arrest (statute).

- Self defence: threat over / no more force
- Making an arrest: perpetrator still at large / reasonable force can still be used, even if they are running away.

Surely you can see the difference?

Nor have I argued differently. Nor is that anything to do with chasing someone with a weapon after the threat has passed.

This applies to the common law excuse of self defence only. With regard to making an arrest - There is no obligation to cease the use of reasonable force, just because the person is running away or the immediate threat of violence passed. As has been said by BB barrister, your own link and the actual CPS guidance, as well as me. Further, nothing prevents you from using an object as a weapon, when pursuing a criminal who you suspect is probably tooled up, so long as this is based on a reasonable belief and you goal is to catch them before they get away and the police arrive.

Which is wholly irrelevant to the Criminal Law Act 1967 and irrelevant to and nothing to do with the fact that it is not lawful to chase after a suspect with a weapon once the threat has ceased.

There is nothing that prevents you from pursuing a suspect and using reasonable force to apprehend them including the use of an object as a potential weapon

Nor will you be able to show otherwise. Nor have I mentioned common law, I don't know why you keep motioning it being the 'wrong law' either nor is relevant to this....

the right to use force to defend yourself is common law, sorry you don't seem to understand that. If you read https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4/section/76 its in black and white.

This common law right to use reasonable force is entirely different to the statutory power to use reasonable force to make an arrest as per section 3(2).

 

[fillyboy]

...and bus drivers get your daughters home safe.

But will they continue do so in future if they are at risk of losing their job?

 

[noseall]

waffle

Nothing in your post makes any sense in regards to what I wrote.
Common law, statute, or otherwise, there is no lawful provision which allows you to peruse a fleeing suspect once the threat has passed, using a weapon and attacking him with it.

 

[noseall]

if they are at risk of losing their job?

Only if they are daft enough to leave the keys in it with the engine running and loaded with passengers. It’s a pretty high bar there fboy. Most bus drivers spend their entire careers, not doing it.

 

[motorbiking]

Nothing in your post makes any sense in regards to what I wrote.
Common law, statute, or otherwise, there is no lawful provision which allows you to peruse a fleeing suspect once the threat has passed, using a weapon and attacking him with it.

not true. It is the same law that allows police to use a baton.

 

[noseall]

not true

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.

What if I chase them as they run off?
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)

 

[noseall]

This common law right to use reasonable force is entirely different to the statutory power to use reasonable force to make an arrest as per section 3(2).

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.

What if I chase them as they run off?
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)

 

[noseall]

haven’t got a clue.

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:

1. 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).
2. 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.

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.

 

[noseall]

It is the same law that allows police to use a baton.

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.