In July 2026 the Crown Prosecution Service announced that a householder would face no criminal charges after one intruder was shot dead and another seriously injured at a remote property near Whaley Bridge, Derbyshire. The CPS said that the householder had discharged a legally held firearm when confronted with burglars inside his home.
The decision inevitably attracted attention because the consequences were so serious. But the underlying legal question was a familiar one: when is a person entitled to use force in self-defence, and how much force can they use?
Three men face separate burglary proceedings arising from the incident and an alleged burglary at the same property the previous night. Those proceedings are active, so this article does not comment on the guilt or innocence of anyone charged.
Self-defence is a complete defence
Self-defence is a complete defence to offences of violence, including murder. If a person acts in lawful self-defence, the fact that the other person is seriously injured or even killed does not by itself make the force unlawful.
The law is principally found in the common law, clarified by section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. There are two central questions. First, did the defendant honestly believe that it was necessary to use force? Secondly, was the force used reasonable in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be?
The first question is concerned with the defendant's actual belief. A person can in principle rely on an honest mistake about the danger they faced, even if that mistake was unreasonable, although the reasonableness of the belief may help a court or jury decide whether it was genuinely held. A honest but mistaken belief brought about because a person is drunk will not be sufficient to prove self defence.
The second question introduces an objective element. The court asks whether the force was reasonable given the situation as the defendant honestly understood it. That matters because a person confronted suddenly by violence is not expected to calculate the precise amount of force required with the benefit of hindsight.
Householders are given additional latitude
The law gives a householder greater latitude where force is used in self-defence against a person believed to be a trespasser in a dwelling. This is sometimes described as the 'householder defence', although it is better understood as a modified application of ordinary self-defence.
Under section 76(5A), grossly disproportionate force cannot be reasonable in a householder case. The important point, however, is that force does not automatically become unlawful merely because it might be described as disproportionate.
The Divisional Court explained the position in R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice. If the force was grossly disproportionate, self-defence fails. If it was not grossly disproportionate, the court must still ask whether the force was reasonable in all the circumstances. Disproportionate force may sometimes fall within that reasonable range, but it is not automatically lawful.
That distinction reflects the reality of confronting an intruder inside a home. Parliament has deliberately allowed more room for instinctive action in that setting, but it has not created a licence to punish an intruder or use unlimited violence.
Can reasonable force include shooting an intruder?
There is no separate rule that makes the use of a firearm incapable of amounting to self-defence. The question remains whether force was necessary and reasonable in the circumstances as the householder honestly believed them to be.
Using a firearm is, of course, capable of causing death or very serious injury. The more dangerous the force, the more important the surrounding circumstances become: what the intruder was doing, whether the householder believed they or another person faced violence, the number of intruders, whether weapons were seen or feared, the speed at which events unfolded and whether the threat was continuing.
The Whaley Bridge decision therefore does not establish a general right to shoot a burglar. It illustrates a different proposition: fatal force is not automatically unlawful simply because it is fatal. If the legal test for self-defence is met, the resulting death may be a lawful killing.
There is also an important distinction between defending people and protecting property. The wider law permits reasonable force in preventing crime and, in appropriate circumstances, protecting property. But the special householder provision allowing the possibility of disproportionate force concerns self-defence or defence of another against a trespasser in the dwelling. It should not be read as permission to use potentially lethal force merely to prevent property being stolen.
You do not have to wait to be attacked
Self-defence can be pre-emptive. A person who honestly believes an attack is about to happen does not have to wait to be struck before acting. Equally, there is no absolute legal duty to retreat. Section 76 expressly provides that the possibility of retreat is a factor to consider, not an obligation.
This is particularly significant in the home. A jury is entitled to consider that a householder confronted unexpectedly by intruders may have only seconds to decide what to do. The law recognises that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to 'weigh to a nicety' the exact amount of force required, and that an honest and instinctive response can be strong evidence that the force was reasonable.
When does self-defence stop?
Self-defence lasts only for as long as force is genuinely needed. Once the danger has passed, the legal position can change very quickly. Chasing someone simply to punish them, continuing to attack an unconscious intruder, or using violence as revenge is very different from responding to an immediate threat. This is why Tony Martin was convicted of murder in a now infamous case that divided the UK in 2000 after he shot dead 16 year old Fred Barras who had attempted to burgle Mr Martin’s home but was running away by the time the fatal shot was fired.
Key factual details can determine the outcome of a case. CCTV, call recordings, forensic evidence, the location of injuries, the position of weapons, the sequence and timing of shots or blows, and what was said immediately before and after the incident may all help establish whether the force was defensive or retaliatory.
Why did the CPS decide not to prosecute?
The CPS statement does not set out the detailed evidence gathered during the investigation, so it would be wrong to speculate about precisely why the evidential test was not met. What it does say is that prosecutors considered the evidence alongside the law governing a householder's right to defend themselves and decided that no criminal charges should follow from either the death or the serious injury.
Once self-defence is properly raised, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. In a case involving a fast-moving confrontation inside a home, that may mean prosecutors have to be satisfied that they can prove either that the householder did not honestly believe force was necessary, or that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be.
The Whaley Bridge case is therefore a useful reminder of an important feature of English criminal law. Self-defence is judged from the position of the person who had to act at the time, not with the calm hindsight available months or years later. That does not make every use of force lawful, but it does mean that the law gives genuine weight to the fear, uncertainty and split-second decisions that can accompany a violent intrusion into the home.
How Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors can help
Cases involving self-defence often turn on the first account given to the police and on evidence that can disappear quickly. Where serious injury or death has occurred, early legal advice can help identify the real issues, preserve relevant evidence and ensure that the circumstances in which force was used are properly understood from the outset.
Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors represents privately paying clients facing serious criminal allegations across England and Wales. If you get in touch then we can advise during an investigation, prepare representations about charge and, where proceedings are brought, build the evidential and legal case needed to present self-defence clearly and accurately.