Thread by @BarristerSecret

So, yesterday I posted a couple of tweets on what the law says on assault and self-defence, following a few requests. Some of the responses suggest I was ambitious, if not naive, to attempt a pithy summary of a complex subject on Twitter, so here’s a slightly longer [THREAD]:

I make no comment on any specific cases (not least as it is reported that a police complaint has been made in relation to one high profile case), but rather aim to addressthe broad question of “What does the law say about the use of force against racists/fascists/Nazis?”

THE LAW: It is a criminal offence to apply unlawful force against a person (assault by beating) or to cause someone to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful force (common assault).

If an assault causes injury, this can be reflected in the level of charge.

Actual bodily harm - less serious injury, including cuts, bruising, chipped teeth, minor fractures.

Wounding - a separation of the skin.

Grievous bodily harm - really serious injury.

There are also offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 which may be relevant to cases that’ve been in the headlines. Provoking unlawful violence or putting a person in fear of violence spring to mind. More serious disorder may constitute affray or violent disorder.

There is also a suite of public order offences involving inciting racial and religious hatred, and racially and religiously aggravated offences of causing harassment, alarm or distress by threatening, abusive or insulting words/behaviour. These may be relevant to this discussion.

The use of force includes throwing items, including food and drink, as well as spitting, pushing, shoving, punching, kicking and using weapons.

You have a legal defence to any of these offences if you acted in lawful self-defence. What is lawful self-defence? I blogged on it here. The key parts are here:

Final screenshot here:

Applying this to the topic du jour - “Is it ok to use force against racists?” - the law is clear. If you are acting in self-defence or defence of another, as defined above, then yes. And the use of force can include pre-emptive strikes.

But if retaliating after being provoked, or initiating violence because you dislike someone, no. That would be unlawful.

Serious provocation would, however, potentially be relevant when the authorities were applying the public interest test in deciding whether to prosecute.

If the provocation was sufficiently serious, and the assault sufficiently minor, there may be no public interest in prosecuting.

If you were nevertheless prosecuted, provocation would be a mitigating factor that a court would consider when dealing with you.

There also exists a legal defence of duress of circumstances/necessity, where you may have a defence to an otherwise criminal act if you had no other option, and life or limb was at stake. This defence is rare, as usually there will always be an alternative to committing a crime.

So, in summary, the law’s position is that if you disagree with someone politically, you have recourse to lawful means (such as the ballot box, or protests, or marches, or debate) which you should use. You should not be beating up people in the street.

The fact that a person is a racist, fascist or Nazi does not, without more, justify, in law, using unlawful force.

If your moral code causes you to disagree with the law - well, that’s a matter for you, and a conversation for another thread. [ENDS]

(NB - due to the phrasing of the original tweets causing confusion, I have deleted them.)