Householders can use a disproportionate level of force against an intruder in their homes if they reasonably believe it is necessary, the high court has ruled.

Judges ruled that the “householder defence”, which relieves people of the responsibility of making fine judgments about proportionality in the heat of the moment, so long as it is necessary, was compatible with European human rights laws.

In a ruling handed down on Friday, they rejected a challenge brought by the family of a man who was left in a coma after allegedly intruding in a home in the early hours of the morning in December 2013.

Relatives of Denby Collins argued that the law, which was strengthened by the coalition government in 2013, was incompatible with the right to life guaranteed by the European convention on human rights.

While the judges stressed that their decision did not give people “carte blanche” to use any degree of force to protect themselves, they said that force was not necessarily unreasonable and unlawful “simply because it is disproportionate – unless it is grossly disproportionate”.

Denby Collins, who was tackled and restrained when he entered a house in Gillingham, Kent, in December 2013, and has remained in a coma since. Photograph: PA

The president of the Queen’s bench division, Sir Brian Leveson, and Mr Justice Cranston used the case to give guidance to judges and juries throughout England and Wales on how to deal with similar cases.



Their ruling confirmed that the current domestic law was valid. The Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance says that “anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime”.

It adds: “You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.”

Grossly disproportionate force, such as a “calculated action of revenge” would not be covered, it says.

In Friday’s ruling, Leveson declared: “In the circumstances I conclude that the criminal law of England and Wales on self-defence in householder cases, taken as a whole, fulfils the framework obligation under Article 2(1).

But the judge warned: “The headline message is and remains clear: a householder will only be able to avail himself of the defence if the degree of force he used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.”

Agreeing with the president, Cranston said the “plain words” of the section read in their legal context “mean that in householder cases the force used in self-defence is not unreasonable simply because it is disproportionate – unless, of course, it is grossly disproportionate”.

Without the law in place, Collins’s family believe, “householder B” – who police investigators said restrained the alleged intruder in a headlock – would have been charged for unlawful wounding or another offence of violence.

They say other family members may also have been liable to prosecution, had they not enjoyed the law’s protection. None was charged over the incident.

The Ministry of Justice welcomed the high court ruling. A spokesman said: “Being confronted by an intruder in your own home can be a terrifying ordeal.



“That is why the last government strengthened the law to give householders greater protection to defend themselves from intruders.”

Collins’s family said they were “disappointed” and considering an appeal.

In a statement released by their solicitors, Hickman and Rose, they said: “Denby’s family continue to believe that the current law insufficiently protects a member of the public from extreme violence being used in self-defence where, for example, the person is left in a coma or is killed because they’re treated, rightly or wrongly, as an intruder into someone’s home.

“They continue to hold the view that it should be sufficient for the CPS to prove that force used by anyone in self-defence is disproportionate for a person to be convicted for an act of violence of this type.”