Self-Defence Applied

Last week’s British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Teskey, 2008 BCCA 288 (CanLII) contains a useful summary of when self-defence can apply as a defence. The Court held:

[18] Self-defence is a justification for otherwise criminal conduct. In R. v. Perka (sub nom. Perka v. The Queen), 1984 CanLII 23 (S.C.C.), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232, a case dealing with the defence of necessity, Dickson J. (as he then was) explained justification in his reasons for the majority (at 246), using self-defence as one example:

Criminal theory recognizes a distinction between “justifications” and “excuses”. A “justification” challenges the wrongfulness of an action which technically constitutes a crime. The police officer who shoots the hostage-taker, the innocent object of an assault who uses force to defend himself against his assailant, the Good Samaritan who commandeers a car and breaks the speed laws to rush an accident victim to the hospital, these are all actors whose actions we consider rightful, not wrongful. For such actions people are often praised, as motivated by some great or noble object. The concept of punishment often seems incompatible with the social approval bestowed on the doer.

[Emphasis in original.]

Thus, the application of force against the victim is not unlawful when the accused’s motive or purpose in applying the force is self-protection so long as the statutory requirements for self-defence are met: see Law Reform Commission of Canada, Working Paper 29, Criminal Law, The General Part: Liability and Defences (Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1982), at 35-36; R. v. Kandola 1993 CanLII 774 (BC C.A.), (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at 488 (B.C.C.A.).