been assaulted,now I'm charged with assault

[kelliejane]

Why am I charged with assault when I was hit first? I have been told that as the other guy made the report first,it makes no difference if I was hit first and acting in self defence

[Buenchico]

Your definition of 'self defence' might well not be the same the legal one.

If someone attacks you, the only right you have to self defence (in the first instance) is the right to take avoiding action (i.e. to run away).

If it's impossible for you to run away, you then have the right to use the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to avoid further assault. (i.e. you have the right to push the assailant away, giving you the chance to run).

If a simple push won't suffice, you can then use further force but still keeping it to an absolute minimum. Your actions must be solely concerned with preventing further assault upon yourself and not with retaliating in any way. So, for example, you might throw a single punch to the assailant's midriff and then, while the assailant is winded, take the opportunity to run away.

If you used more than the absolute minimum amount of force necessary to prevent further assault on yourself, you're guilty of assault. Any element of retaliation (even if such retaliation consisted of no more than a push) similarly means that you're guilty of assault.

To make 'self defence' stand up in court, you'll need to prove that you couldn't have run away and that you had no choice other than to use the amount of force which you did (strictly in order to avoid further assault and in no way to retaliate).

Chris

[fredpuli47]

The only adjustment, which courts are bound to make, is that , in the agony of the moment, a person cannot be expected to weigh, to a nicety, the precise degree of force necessary to protect themselves or stop the attack. "If the jury [or magistrates] thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken " judgment by Lord Morris in Palmer v R . [1971] A.C. 814, approved and followed in the Court of Appeal in R v McInness 55 Cr App R 551 and by the House of Lords in R v Clegg [1995] a A.C 482 H.L.
Bear in mind too that, once self-defence is raised, it's for the prosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not reasonable self defence.

In other words the courts are expected to apply some common sense .