15C—Requirement of reasonable proportionality not to apply in case of an
innocent defence against home invasion
(1) This section
applies where—
(a) a
relevant defence would have been available to the defendant if the defendant's
conduct had been (objectively) reasonably proportionate to the threat that the
defendant genuinely believed to exist (the "perceived threat ); and
(b) the
victim was not a police officer acting in the course of his or her duties.
(2) In a case to which
this section applies, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the
relevant defence even though the defendant's conduct was not (objectively)
reasonably proportionate to the perceived threat if the defendant establishes,
on the balance of probabilities, that—
(a) the
defendant genuinely believed the victim to be committing, or to have just
committed, home invasion; and
(b) the
defendant was not (at or before the time of the alleged offence) engaged in
any criminal misconduct that might have given rise to the threat or perceived
threat; and
(c) the
defendant's mental faculties were not, at the time of the alleged offence,
substantially affected by the voluntary and non-therapeutic consumption of a
drug.
(3) In this
section—
"criminal misconduct" means conduct constituting an offence for which a
penalty of imprisonment is prescribed;
"drug" means alcohol or any other substance that is capable (either alone or
in combination with other substances) of influencing mental functioning;
"home invasion" means a serious criminal trespass committed in a place of
residence;
"non-therapeutic"—consumption of a drug is to be considered
non-therapeutic unless—
(a) the
drug is prescribed by, and consumed in accordance with the directions of, a
medical practitioner; or
(b) the
drug is of a kind available, without prescription, from registered
pharmacists, and is consumed for a purpose recommended by the manufacturer and
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions;
"relevant defence" means a defence under section 15(1) or
section 15A(1).