Defence of property
The defence of property is used in criminal context regarding property damage cases.
Many jurisdictions permit the use of reasonable force to protect property from theft or damage.
Generally, the defendant accepts the elements of the crime but argues that their actions were justified or excused based on this defence.
The privilege to defend property is more limited than the privilege of self-defence because our society values human life more than material possessions.
Deadly force is generally never justified for the defence of property. In a few jurisdictions, deadly force is permitted to prevent or stop a felony.
The defense of property permits individuals to use a reasonable amount of force to protect their property. Such property can include personal items or real property and jurisdictions differ on the extent of force permissible in defending distinct categories of property. The justifiable use of force must be reasonable.
Marwa s/o Robi v R [1959] 1 EA 660
The deceased went to the appellant's house, his father-inlaw to reclaim cattle. When the deceased actually attempted to drive away from the cattle, he was speared to death by the appellant.
The issue before the court was whether the appellant killed the deceased in defence of property.
It was held that in driving off the cattle, the deceased was committing a trespass, and the appellant was entitled to use reasonable force to prevent the taking of the cattle.
However, the appellant used excessive force than was reasonable and had thereby killed the deceased. The weapon and its method of use leave no doubt that the intent was to kill, and not merely to prevent the removal of the cattle.
There can be no justification in law for deliberate homicide in these circumstances, and we have no doubt that, subject to the question of provocation, the offence is murder.
Although the learned judge referred to the passage in Archbold relating to assaults and an extent to which the use of force in the defence of property is a defence to a charge of assault, and not to the chapter on homicide, we think that he did, in fact, apply correct principles and that his decision must have been the same had he had regard to the relevant law as stated in the chapter on homicide.
Also Read: Self-defence
Defense of others
The law allows people to use force to protect others they reasonably believe to be in imminent danger.
The lawful-defence-of-others doctrine closely relates to the law of self-defense, and can be a complete defence to criminal charges.
Except for the identity of the person in danger, the elements of defence of others tend to be the same as those for self-defense.
For example, if a person tries to rape a woman, it is the duty of any other person to prevent the act. If in the process the accused dies, the protector can raise the defence of self-defence.
For the accused to set up the defence, he or she must show that he or she had a reasonable belief and that he or she used only as much force as a reasonable person would use to stop the threat.
Read Next: Burden of Proof in self-defence