Householders and Self-defence: Understanding a Defendant’s Belief That the Victim Is a Trespasser: R v Cheeseman [2019] EWCA Crim 149
DOI | 10.1177/0022018319845154 |
Date | 01 April 2019 |
Published date | 01 April 2019 |
Author | Mark Thomas |
Subject Matter | Case Notes |
The Journal of Criminal Law
2019, Vol. 83(2) 116–120
Householders and Self-
ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
defence: Understanding
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018319845154
a Defendant’s Belief That
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
the Victim Is a Trespasser
R v Cheeseman [2019] EWCA Crim 149
Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (CJIA) 2008 restates the common law defence of
self-defence. By s 76(9) of the 2008 Act, its introduction was designed to ‘clarify the operation of the
existing defences’ in the common law. Following the amendments in s 43 of the Crime and Courts Act
2013, a new category of self-defence was inserted into the legislation, namely ‘householder’ cases. A
householder case is explained in s 76(8A) as follows:
For the purposes of this section ‘a householder case’ is a case where—
a.
the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence
b.
the force concerned is force used by D while in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that
is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or is both),
c.
D is not a trespasser at the time the force is used and
d.
at that time D believed V to be in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.
Cheeseman was an appeal largely concerned with the correct interpretation of the defendant’s belief
that the victim was a trespasser in s 76(8A)(d).
Corporal Steven Cheeseman (C) and the victim, Lance Corporal Lindley, had been stationed at a
barracks in Cyprus. On the morning of 25 March 2017, the pair had been drinking alcohol and chatting in
C’s room. It was accepted that the victim first entered the room with the consent of C and both men were
intoxicated. At around 12.20, C left the room to eat lunch, leaving the victim alone in the room. Upon his
return, C discovered the door to be locked and the victim was heard, from the outside, to be trashing C’s
room. The reasons for such were ‘not material’ to the Board, though it was noted that the victim was ‘not
only drunk but agitated and disturbed’. Having shouted to the victim and knocked on the door, the victim
eventually opened the door. C discovered his room had indeed been ‘trashed’ and a number of his
personal belonging had been destroyed; this subsequently led to a confrontation between the pair. In the
midst of the confrontation, C stabbed the victim repeatedly. It was noted by the Board that C picked up
the knife once he was in the room; he had not armed himself prior to re-entering his room.
C was charged with the attempted murder of the victim. At trial, C contended that he lacked the
necessary mens rea for attempted murder (intention to kill) but, in any event, should not be liable for the
offence, given that he was acting in self-defence. C claimed to have been acting in self-defence on
account that the victim had attacked him first, and force was necessary to prevent C from losing his own
life. C relied on the ‘householder’ provision in s 76 of the CJIA 2008, claiming that the force was used
inside a dwelling (i.e. C’s private accommodation) and that the victim was a trespasser at the time force
was used. The trial judge concluded that the householder defence was of no application to the instant
case for two reasons:
Case Note
117
i.
the defence applied only to cases where the victim had entered the building as a trespasser; it did
not apply where the victim entered the building lawfully but had then thereafter become a
trespasser; and
ii.
in any event, there was no evidence that C believed the victim to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial