Purser Law Blog

What is Self-Defence?

If you have been charged with a crime, then you may be able to argue that you were acting in “self-defence.” This is a defence recognized by the Criminal Code, and, if proven, will result in an acquittal (i.e. finding that you were “not guilty”). Self-defence is based on the idea that, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate to protect yourself against unjustified uses of force. However, self-defence does not apply in all scenarios where you believe you were justified in defending yourself. Rather, there are three specific elements of a successful self-defence argument. 

The Three Elements of Self-Defence

To successfully argue that you were acting in self-defence the judge must decide that:  

1. You had a firm basis to believe the assailant was going to physically hurt you or another person; 
2. The actions you took in response were to protect yourself or the other person against the assailant; and 
3. Your actions were “reasonable” in the circumstances.  

The Three Element of Self-Defence Explained  

The first element of self-defence focuses on what you believed leading up to your act of self-defence. If you believed that the assailant was (1) using force against you or another person OR (2) threatening to use force against you or another person, then you may rely on self-defence as long as your belief was based on “reasonable grounds.” 

The second element of self-defence focuses on why you responded to the assailant’s actions. If you responded out of a need to defend or protect yourself or another person, then you may rely on self-defence. However, if you had an ulterior motive behind your actions, such as an independent desire to hurt the assailant (i.e. you were seeking revenge), then it is unlikely you will be successful in arguing self-defence.  

The third element of self-defence focuses on whether your actions were “reasonable” considering how the situation unfolded. When deciding if your actions were reasonable the judge will consider several factors. These factors include:  

• The nature of the assailant’s actions or threats;  
• Whether you could respond to the situation without resorting to force; 
• Your role in the incident (i.e. leading up to the incident); 
• Whether you, the assailant or another person used or threatened to use a weapon;   
• The size, age, gender and physical capabilities of yourself, the assailant and any another person involved in the incident; 
• The relationship between you and the assailant, including whether you used violence against one another in the past; 
• Any communication you had with the assailant leading up to the incident; 
• Whether your response was proportionate to the assailant’s actions; and 
• Whether you knew the assailant was lawfully entitled to use force against you. 

This is not a closed or exhaustive list but just a few things that a Court may consider. 

In deciding whether your actions were “reasonable” the trial judge will consider what the “reasonable person,” who had the same background, characteristics and experiences as you, would have done in the same situation. If the reasonable person would not have responded to assailant with force, then your argument of self-defence is unlikely to be successful. However, Courts have repeatedly held that accused persons are not required to weigh that force “to a nicety.” This is in recognition that many situations are dynamic and happen quickly. As a result, you will not have time to consider whether your actions are exactly proportional. The Court will take this into account when determining whether your actions were reasonable in the circumstances. 

Self-Defence and the Burden of Proof 

An important thing to remember when raising the defence of self-defence is that once there is an “air of reality” to the defence of self-defence, the burden then shifts to the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were NOT acting in self-defence. Therefore, even if your actions were not exactly proportional, a Judge may have a reasonable doubt that you were acting in self-defence and find you not guilty. 

Defence of Property  

In some situations, you may also be entitled to take defensive actions if you believe that someone is going to trespass onto your property, steal your property or damage or destroy your property. Like self-defence, any actions must have been taken in defence of your property and must be considered “reasonable” in all circumstances. Similarly, like self-defence, once an “air of reality” is raised to the defence of property, the burden then shifts to the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were NOT acting in defence of your property. Again, even if your actions were not exactly proportional, a Judge may have a reasonable doubt that you were acting in defence of your property and find you not guilty. 

If You Believe You Were Acting in Self-Defence, Call Purser Law Now 

If you have been charged with a criminal offence and believe you were acting to defend yourself, another person or your property, then call Purser Law now for a free 30-minute consultation at 780-851-7435to speak to an experienced criminal lawyer. 

---