Self-Defence at the Bus Stop
Ravi, 62, waits at a bus stop at 9 p.m. Marcus, 28 and visibly intoxicated, approaches shouting and shoves Ravi twice in the chest, causing him to stumble. Ravi backs away and says 'leave me alone.' Marcus advances with clenched fists. Ravi, who walks with a cane, swings the cane at Marcus's legs, striking his knee. Marcus falls, hits his head on the curb, and suffers a fractured skull. Medical evidence shows Marcus's blood alcohol was high and he had no weapon. Witnesses agree Marcus never punched Ravi and that Ravi could have retreated into an open all-night shop three meters away. Ravi says he was terrified and did not think about the shop. The jurisdiction requires that force be necessary and proportionate, and does not impose a duty to retreat where retreat is not safely possible.
1. Assess whether Ravi can rely on self-defence, addressing necessity, proportionality, and the relevance of the available retreat.
Read the worked answer
Self-defence requires an honest belief in the need to use force and a response that is necessary and proportionate. Necessity is judged on the facts as the defendant honestly believed them, but proportionality is assessed objectively.
Necessity: Marcus shoved Ravi twice and advanced with clenched fists. A reasonable person in Ravi's position, 62 and using a cane, could honestly believe an attack was imminent. The shoves are a battery, and the advance signals more. That supports the necessity element.
Retreat: an open shop three meters away existed, but the jurisdiction does not require retreat where it is not safely possible. Retreating into a shop with an aggressive pursuer may not be safe, and the law generally does not demand a display of cowardice. The failure to retreat is a factor, not a bar.
Proportionality: this is the difficult element. A cane swing at the legs against an unarmed man who had shoved but not punched may be proportionate to the perceived threat, especially given Ravi's age and limited mobility. The serious injury resulted from the fall, not the blow itself. Courts look at the force used, not the unintended consequence.
Conclusion: Ravi has a strong self-defence argument, though proportionality is contestable. The exam point is to separate the honest belief (subjective) from the degree of force (objective).
2. Suppose the prosecution argues Ravi used excessive force because Marcus was unarmed. Construct the strongest counter-argument and identify what fact would most weaken it.
Read the worked answer
The prosecution's premise, that unarmed means low threat, ignores the disparity in age, size, and mobility. Marcus is 28 and intoxicated; Ravi is 62 and uses a cane. Two shoves that cause stumbling are already physical violence, and the clenched-fist advance signals escalation. A person need not wait to be punched before defending himself, and the law does not require matching force weapon for weapon.
The cane was swung at the legs, a low-lethality target, not at the head. The fractured skull came from the curb, an unintended consequence of the fall. Proportionality looks at the force intended and used, not at every downstream injury.
The strongest counter-argument is that the response was measured and aimed at stopping, not injuring.
The fact that would most weaken it: evidence that Marcus had stopped advancing or was turning away when Ravi swung. If the threat had passed, the force would no longer be necessary, and self-defence would fail regardless of Ravi's fear.