{"id":1370,"date":"2021-02-08T10:28:38","date_gmt":"2021-02-08T15:28:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.avocatecriminaliste.ca\/legitime-defense-loi\/"},"modified":"2023-01-23T23:22:27","modified_gmt":"2023-01-24T04:22:27","slug":"law-self-defence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.avocatecriminaliste.ca\/en\/law-self-defence\/","title":{"rendered":"What the law says about self-defence"},"content":{"rendered":"

What the law says about self-defence<\/h1>\n

Have you been accused of assault? Were you perhaps countering an attack? If so, it\u2019s important to find out if you could plead self-defence in your case.<\/p>\n

Articles 34 (1)<\/strong> and 34 (2)<\/strong> of the Criminal Code<\/a> specify the relevant facts to evaluate in order to determine whether you can plead self-defence in court.<\/p>\n

Article 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if:<\/p>\n

they believe on reasonable grounds<\/strong> that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;<\/p>\n

the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose<\/strong> of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and<\/p>\n

the act committed is reasonable<\/strong> in the circumstances.<\/p>\n

Factors<\/strong><\/p>\n

Article 34 (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable<\/strong> in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances<\/strong> of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:<\/p>\n

(a) the nature of the force or threat;
\n(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
\n(c) the person\u2019s role in the incident;
\n(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
\n(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
\n(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
\n(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
\n(g) the nature and proportionality of the person\u2019s response to the use or threat of force; and
\n(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How to interpret these Articles<\/h2>\n

Article 34 (1) (a): This Article refers to reasonable grounds<\/strong> for believing that force is being used. Therefore, it\u2019s a question of analyzing the context of the situation. This criterion relies on an objective analysis<\/strong> of the incident. For example, whether the accused threw a punch in response to a simple push or simply pushed in response to a punch.<\/p>\n

Article 34 (1) (b): This Article refers to the purpose<\/strong> of the act. In this case, a subjective analysis<\/strong> is called for. The act must have been committed for purposes of defense, i.e. to protect oneself rather than to get revenge or to attack the other person. This relates to the state of mind of the accused\u2014what he or she was thinking at the moment of committing the alleged act.<\/p>\n

Article 34 (1) (c): The questions that are often raised here have to do with the reasonableness of the response in relation<\/strong> to the action. While it isn\u2019t necessary to demonstrate what would have been the perfect or ideal behavior in this situation, the accused must nevertheless demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

For example, the following questions may be relevant:<\/p>\n