The simple answer to the question we pose is yes you can and people often are charged with assault when they act in self-defence. The reason for this is also simple, when you assault someone in self-defence the starting point is that you have committed an offence. So, the first question which arises is not whether you have committed an assault but rather do you have a lawful excuse for having committed that assault. Self-defence is a lawful excuse and therefore a valid defence to raise when charged with assault.

There are many offences that, when committed, self-defence is a valid defence for including unlawful assault, common law assault, recklessly causing injury, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing serious injury, intentionally causing serious injury, manslaughter and even murder.

When can I raise self-defence?

You can raise self-defence in circumstances where there is evidence of you having acted in self-defence. This may arise if, when you are interviewed by the police, you provide a version of events that is consistent with you having acted in self-defence. It may also arise if other people who observed your conduct have made statements which indicate that you have or may have acted in self-defence or – as is sometimes the case – there is footage of your conduct or physical evidence which supports an argument of you having acted in self-defence.

Once you raise self-defence the onus is on the prosecution to disprove this defence. This means that where self-defence arises on the evidence you will be not be convicted of an offence unless the prosecution proves either: (a) that you did not believe that your conduct was necessary in self-defence; or (b) your conduct was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as you perceived them.

As a consequence, should your matter progress to a trial there are essentially two questions a jury will be required to consider: (a) is there a reasonable possibility that you believed that your conduct was necessary to defend yourself? and (b) is there a reasonable possibility that what you did was a reasonable response to the circumstances as you perceived them?

You will be found not guilty unless the jury answer “no” to either of these questions.

What is the difference between an act of self-defence and assault?

As set out above, the difference between assault and self-defence is that self-defence is an assault, whatever type it may be, which is justified at law owing to the circumstances of the assault, your perceptions at the time of the assault and the reasonableness of your response. In short, self-defence is an assault for which you have a lawful excuse.

Cases involving assault or domestic violence may give rise to self-defence being raised. An experienced lawyer will be well equipped to help you in making an assessment as to whether you can raise self-defence (or any other defence for that matter).

Are you a suspect of an assault?

If you are accused of having committed an assault and have not yet been interviewed by the police it is imperative that you seek professional legal advice immediately.  This will enable you to obtain advice as to what the best strategy is having regard to the circumstances of your case. In short, if you have a valid argument of self-defence it is often the case that you should give an account to the police of what happened in your formal interview. If, however, you do not have a valid argument of self-defence or there is uncertainty as to whether you do, it will be far more prudent to exercise your rights and refrain from commenting when you are interviewed by police. Here it is worth pointing out that in the absence of speaking to an experienced lawyer before you are interviewed by the police, despite what you may think, it is often a very dangerous course to give an account to police in your interview.  This is because what you may think self-defence is and what it actually is at law are two very different things. So, if you do not speak to a lawyer before you are interviewed by the police the most prudent thing to do is to refrain from commenting when interviewed by the police.

Expert and Experienced Criminal Lawyers in Melbourne

Stary Norton Halphen are a team of expert criminal lawyers Melbourne with an abundance of experience who are able to provide you with decisive and strategic advice as to the various alternatives you have, the positives and negatives of each of those alternatives and what is the best course for you to take having regard to the circumstances of your case.

If , however, you are: not able to speak with a lawyer before you are interviewed and are charged; want to understand whether your actions constitute self-defence at law; and also to work out what the best approach is for you having regard to the circumstances of your case you should arrange to meet with a lawyer who has experience in criminal lawyer.

Stary Norton Halphen stand out as the criminal lawyers many accused people in Melbourne turn to for expert advice and legal representation. They have years of experience working on a broad range of cases involving all types of assault.

At whatever point in time you decide to get legal assistance, whether its before you are interviewed or after you are charged, it is important your lawyer is able to guide you through the process and help you make strategic decisions so that when you ultimately face a jury at court you are in the best position possible to successfully defend the charges you face. At Stary Norton Halphen that is exactly what you will get.