James Grant

One’s conduct is not unlawful (and so not criminal) if one acted in self defence. The requirements of self defence are fairly straightforward:RELATING TO THE ATTACK:1. There must be an attack on or infringement of one of your rights – this may be your right to bodily integrity, but could include your right of movement;2. It must have commenced or be immenent; and3. It must itself be unlawful – thus eg, if one seeks to evade legitimate arrest, one may not rely on self defence.RELATING TO THE RESPONSE:1. Force used in response must be directed against the attacker;2. It must be necessary – ie there must be no (reasonable) alternatives;3. The extent of force used must be reasonable – all things considered, including, the reletaive size of the attacker vs the accused, the time of the, the means at hand, the interests at stake … Thus, if the EFF vehicle was authorised to enter the memorial park, the requirements for the “attack” appear to be satisfied. Whether the accused could succeed with a claim to self defence would then turn on whether force was necessary at all, and if it was, whether the extent of force used was reasonable. But there is more – for there to be the necessary intention to assault – even if a court finds that the force used was unnecessary and/or unreasonable, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew or foresaw the real possibility of this.