Oraki v Director of Public Prosecutions

The common-law defence of self-defence, including defence of another, is available to a charge of wilfully obstructing a constable under section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. Its availability does not depend on the offence involving the use of force. The relevant question is whether, on the facts as the defendant genuinely believed them to be, the conduct was justified. A mistaken belief about the facts may support the defence, even if unreasonable; a mere mistake about the law does not. Kenlin v Gardiner did not decide the issue because it concerned assault, not obstruction.

The appellant was convicted at Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court of obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. The Crown Court at Isleworth dismissed that part of his appeal on 4 August 2017, holding that self-defence or defence of another was unavailable to the offence. It nevertheless found that the defence would have succeeded on the facts if legally available.

The appeal by way of case stated concerned whether self-defence or defence of another was available to a charge of obstructing a constable.

1. Appeal allowed. The question in the case stated was answered in the affirmative and the conviction was quashed.
2. Self-defence and defence of another are general defences known to the criminal law. There was no principled basis for excluding them from a charge under section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. The defence is not confined to cases involving physical force. It may, depending on the facts, justify conduct such as blocking a police vehicle to protect another person.
3. Kenlin v Gardiner was not authority for the Crown Court’s ruling. It concerned assaulting a constable under the predecessor provision, section 51(1) of the Police Act 1964, and held on its facts that the police action was unlawful. It said nothing about obstruction.
4. The respondent’s broader submission that self-defence is unavailable whenever a constable acts lawfully was rejected. Under section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the question is assessed by reference to the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. The reasonableness of the belief bears on whether it was genuinely held; once genuinely held, the belief may be relied on even if mistaken or unreasonable. Section 76(10)(b) confirms that self-defence includes defence of another.
5. The Crown Court found that the appellant intervened because he believed his mother was being assaulted by the police. If that belief had been true, the defence would have been available. The Crown Court had therefore erred in law in treating the defence as unavailable.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: On 4 August 2017, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the conviction for obstructing PC Nash, while allowing his appeals concerning other offences.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the appeal by way of case stated, answered the legal question affirmatively and quashed the conviction.