Private defence of person and property; mistake and statutory authority
LUG-101 Law of Torts including Motor Vehicle Accident and Consumer Protection Act, Unit II: Private defences. · LLB · 60 min
The law allows a person to use reasonable force to defend himself, others and his property against an imminent unlawful threat. This lecture explains the essentials of private defence in tort (imminent danger, reasonable and proportionate force, no retaliation), the protection of property by deterrents (Bird v. Holbrook, Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan, Cresswell v. Sirl), excessive force (Collins v. Renison, Lane v. Holloway, Revill v. Newbery), the parallel rules of the BNS (ss. 34-44, IPC ss. 96-106) with Deo Narain and Darshan Singh, and two related defences in outline: mistake and statutory authority (Vaughan v. Taff Vale, Hammersmith Railway v. Brand, Smith v. London and South Western Railway). It answers the short note of 2019-20 (A7).
Objectives
- State the essentials of private defence of person and property in tort.
- Apply the proportionality test with Collins v. Renison, Lane v. Holloway and Revill v. Newbery.
- Explain the limits on protecting property by spring guns, live wires, dogs and similar deterrents (Bird v. Holbrook, Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan).
- Relate the tort defence to BNS ss. 34-44 (IPC ss. 96-106), including when death may be caused.
- Explain in outline when mistake is a defence and how statutory authority excuses acts done without negligence.
Slides
- Private defence: meaning and scope
- Essentials of the defence in tort
- Excessive force: Collins v. Renison (1754) and Lane v. Holloway (1968)
- Protecting property by deterrents: spring guns, live wires, dogs and glass
- Ramanuja Mudali v. M. Gangan (1984): the live wire
- The burglar shot through the door: Revill v. Newbery (1996)
- Private defence in the BNS (ss. 34-44, IPC ss. 96-106)
- Mistake as a defence (in brief)
- Statutory authority
Loading the lecture…