Burns, R. v Paul

Self-help involving force is exceptional. A vehicle owner may only possibly use reasonable force as a last resort, after all reasonably practicable alternatives to regain possession have failed, to remove a person who entered without permission and refuses to leave. Those principles do not authorise the forcible ejection of an invited passenger merely because the owner withdraws permission. Where the passenger entered under a mutual understanding that she would be driven back, and the owner can readily restore exclusive possession without force by doing so, the force is unlawful.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Bradford of assault occasioning actual bodily harm after forcibly removing the complainant from his car and preventing her from re-entering it. She had entered the car with his agreement during a proposed sexual transaction and on the mutual understanding that he would return her to the area from which he had collected her.

After changing his mind about the transaction, the appellant asked her to leave in a secluded area. He used force when she refused. The appeal challenged the trial judge’s direction that the force was unlawful as a matter of law if it caused actual bodily harm.

The central issue was whether a car owner could lawfully use reasonable force to eject an invited passenger who later refused to leave.

1. Leave was granted and the appeal was dismissed. The trial judge correctly directed the jury that, if the appellant caused the complainant actual bodily harm in the circumstances described, the force was unlawful.
2. The appellant was not acting in self-defence, defence of another, prevention of crime, or defence of property against damage. His argument therefore depended on self-help to recover exclusive occupation of his car.
3. The court doubted that the rights of a householder or landowner to remove a trespasser could simply be transferred to a vehicle. The common law treats forcible self-help with particular caution. Southwark London Borough v Williams [1971] Ch 734 supported the exceptional character of the remedy, and Lloyd v DPP [1992] 1 All ER 984 supported the requirement that force be contemplated only where there is no reasonable alternative.
4. The court accepted, conditionally, that a vehicle owner might as a last resort use reasonable force against a person who entered without permission and refused to leave after all practicable alternatives had failed. It did not decide wider civil-law questions about recaption of property.
5. That possible position did not assist the appellant. The complainant was an invited passenger, and both understood that she would be returned to the starting area when their dealings ended. The appellant could readily have regained exclusive possession without force by driving her back. His unilateral change of mind did not justify ejecting her by force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—in [2010] EWCA Crim 1023, granted leave and dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Bradford—on 17 August 2009, a jury convicted the appellant of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The present appeal concerned that conviction.