Tort law (2022): Defense: defense of property + Shopkeeper’s privilege + Neutral reportage

The defense of property is a common method of justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property.

English law.

Generally, in addition to the right of self-defense at common law, section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that,

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in arresting offenders or suspects.

Insofar as an attack on property is a crime, reasonable force may be used to prevent the crime or to arrest the offender, whether it be theft of a sum of money or the damage of an object. In many cases of robbery and burglary, the threat will be to both a person and property, and this combination can be a powerful defense. In AG's Reference (No 2 of 1983) (1984) Lane CJ held that a defendant who manufactured ten petrol bombs to defend his shop during the Toxteth Riots could set up the defence of showing that he possessed an explosive substance "for a lawful purpose" if he could show he acted to protect himself or his family or property by means he believed reasonably necessary to meet the attack. In theory, the defense of property by itself cannot reasonably provide a justification for inflicting serious injury, but there are a number of cases approving considerable violence to arrest criminals threatening property.

Although R v Scully (1824) held that it was not justifiable to shoot an intruder merely to arrest him, on the facts, "the life of the prisoner was threatened, and if he considered his life in actual danger, he was justified in shooting the deceased as he had done; but if, not considering his own life in danger, he rashly shot this man, who was only a trespasser, he would be guilty of manslaughter." See self-defense (Australia) for a comparative view on whether the use of excessive force causing death should give rise to a mitigatory defense and "Reform" below. In Mead and Belt's Case (1823). Holroyd J instructed a jury that violence could not be used against a civil trespasser, adding: "But, the making an attack upon a dwelling, and especially at night, the law regards as equivalent to an assault on a man's person; for a man's house is his castle and therefore, in the eye of the law, it is equivalent to an assault."