Police Use of Lethal Force: A Different Test?
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9807100105 |
| Date | 01 January 1998 |
| Published date | 01 January 1998 |
| Author | Phil Palmer |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PHIL PALMER, LLB, MA
Operations Faculty, Police Staff College, Bramshill
POLICE USE OF LETHAL FORCE:
ADIFFERENT TEST?
The lawful use
of
force is established when the act
of
force is aimed at
resisting, repelling, or preventing an unlawful immediate threat. The
purpose
of
this article is not simply to consider this definition, but to
examine the nature and the limits
of
the permissible use
of
lethal force,
specifically by those who are entrusted to enforce the law. These issues
will to be considered in conjunction with Home Office and ACPO
guidelines to police officers regarding the use
of
lethal force, and in the
light
of
the present Government's public commitment to the European
Convention on Human Rights.JIt is arguable that these considerations
impose on the police a more restrictive stipulation than the
"reasonableness" criterion required by the domestic law.
The Legal Use of Force
The English criminal law on the use of force is slightly complicated by
the fact that it consists of rules and exceptions laid down at common
law, and a general standard of reasonableness laid down by statute. The
distinction is to be found in the difference between public and private
defence. Private defence is regulated by the common law,' which
provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the
circumstances, to defend himself or another against attack. Public
defence relates to the use of force where it is used to prevent crime or
effect a lawful arrest, and is regulated by statute. Section 3 of the
Criminal Law Act 1967 provides:
"(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.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of common law on
the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the
subsection is justified by that purpose."
Professor's Smith and Hogan contend that the effect of s.3(1) has been
to modify the rules of common law.' They point out that,
"It
would be
absurd to ask D whether he was acting in defence of E or to prevent a
murder being committed and preposterous that the law should differ
according to his answer... the Act may be taken to have clarified the
common law...The principles applicable are the same whether the
defence be put on the grounds of self-defence or on grounds of
January 1998 The Police Journal 35
To continue reading
Request your trial