An individual can use reasonable force to defend themselves against threats to harm, hence in

this situation they can use private defence to fight themselves. In simple terms, people can
use private defence with reasonable force to protect themselves when there is a threat or they
believe that they are about to be attacked, this might be because in the perception of society
regards the aggressor’s wrongful conduct as rendering an individual’s life less valuable than
the defenders.

However, before praising or condoning the defender’s action, several requirements must be
satisfied, some of these requirements concern the nature of the threatened attack confronting
the defender such as the need for the impending attack to be a particular kind.

Other requirements concern the degree of force applied by the defender to counter the
threatened attack They include the requirement that the force used by the way of private
defence was necessary and proportionate to the threatened danger, which if the private
defence is not pleaded it would automatically have amounted to a crime .

Malaysia Penal Code

Section 102 of the Malaysia penal code states, the right of private defence of the body
commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an
attempt or threat to commit the offense, though the offence may not have been committed;
and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. In a criminal
trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused throughout the trial.
It is worth noting that a trial is not one-sided. The accused is also equipped with a number of
rights to defend himself, which include the right to present his defence in a trial. The right to
defence in this context means that if the accused is charged in court for committing a
particular offence and does not plead guilty, then the accused has the right to present his
defence against the charge framed against him in the course of trial. Such defence can either
be adduced by himself if he is unrepresented or through his lawyer. Legally, there is no
limitation to the number of defences that can be invoked by an accused in a trial. It depends
mostly on the suitability and relevance of the defence to the offence

In the case of Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Balwant Singh. There is three issues in this case , the
first issue is whether Dato’ Balwant Singh is liable under the section 302 (b) of the penal
code . Next, the second issue is whether Dato’ Balwant Singh was confronted with a
apprehension of danger to his body and the third issue is whether act that done by Dato’
Balwant Singh was considered as private defence.

The accused was charge under Section 302 of the Penal Code stated that whoever commits
murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
fine .The accused was in his car and the deceased was riding his motorcycle .Apparently the
deceased overtook the accused car from the left and the car came into the lane where the
accused daughter was driving , hence the accused hooted his car to warn other car and the
deceased mistakenly thought that the hoot was intentionally for him and got furious and they
had a fight and the deceased pulled out the accused from the car and attacked him with a
stick. The accused fired 2 shots , the first shot was to warn and the second shoot killed the
deceased. The accused pleaded guilty and called for private defence. The case was held that
the right of private defence commences as soon there is a direct threat of danger to the body
of the person and they are obligated to the right of private defence as long as such
apprehension of danger to his body exists. If a person has a time to seek protection of public
authority for the purpose of defending his life then the right of public defence will no longer
be available. Although it is possible for anyone to expect to access specific amount of force
that is necessary to defend himself from any attack , any retaliation in exercise of private
defence would not excessive but accordingly.

A man who is about to be attacked does not have to wait for his assailant to strike first , thus
he should not wait till he is actually attacked or inflicted in injury in order to react. The law
does not require citizen to behave like a coward . Based on the facts of the case , the
apprehension of danger that the accused had to his body and life was reasonable as the
deceased was arm with a stick that was a big branch of tree big enough to crack a person’s
skull or bone if hit .Therefore the accused was permitted to exercise private defence , the
accused was acquitted and discharge.

In the case of of Public Prosecutor v . Mohd Azul bin Mohd Arifin [ 2016 ] 2 CLJ 815 ,
apparently , the accused had stolen a mobile phone from the victim by snatching it from her
hand. Hence , the accused had stolen by snatching it from her hand. The accused was charged
with committing theft under S379 of Penal Code. The issues in the case was whether the
accused had the necessary intention to seize her belongings without any rights which would
amount to theft under S379 of Penal Code. The court also held that the act of snatching the
mobile phone from the victim’s hand clearly showed that the accused had the intention to
permanently seize the victim from her belongings. The court also held that the act of of
snatching her belongings clearly showed that the accused had the intention to purposely steal
her belongings .The court further noted that the accused’s defence that he did not have the
intention to steal the mobile phone was not credible , as he immediately rushed to fled from
the scene without any remorse , thus it came into conclusion that he had purposely deprive
the victim of her belongings. The court ultimately convicted the accused to theft under S379
of Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment . In summary , the case of Public
Prosecutor v Mohd Azrul bin Mohd Arifin [2016]

In the case of Chan Kwee Fong V Public Prosecutor [2010] 1 MLJ 441 , is a landmark case in
Malaysia that deals with the right of self defence .On 16 August 2002 , Ng Wen Beng the
deceased and Chan Kwee Fong the accused had met in a coffee shop in Kuala Terengganu
and there was an altercation between them . Apparently , the fight was about Lee Kim Choo
( CHOO) who had six months prior to the incident in the coffee shop , been the lover of the
accused but later become the lover of the accused but later become the lover of the accused
but who later become the lover the deceased . According to Choo , on the night in question
the accused had invited her for for a coffee date to have a discussion .At the coffee shop the
accused had allegedly slapped Choo and then later stabbed the deceased four times .The
deceased passed away on 17 August 2002 at the Kuala Terengganu General Hospital and the
accused was charged with the offence of murder under S302 of Penal Code.

The issue before the court was whether the accused had a valid claim of self – defence .The
court considered the facts of the case and held that the accused had a reasonable apprehension
of death or grievous hurt , and acted in self defence when he stabbed the deceased.

At the trial , Choo testified that she saw the accused stab the deceased while they were both
were facing each other and she also stated that after stabbing the deceased run to the rear of
the shop and the accused had opportunity to caught up with the deceased and stabbed him
again from the back. Given the point of time m the deceased had allegedly fallen and accused
fled from the scene . The case was held that the trial judge was right in treating the doctors
who were involved testified for the prosecution as expert witnesses, From the evidence of
those expert witnesses , the first two elements of S300(c) of Penal Code , which required
proof that there was an intention to inflict the aggressor was the accused and the accused had
first stabbed the deceased while the two were facing each other and then continued stabbing
him when the deceased ran to the rear of the shop.
The evidence given by Choo was consistent with the evidence of the doctor who conducted
the post-mortem. The court also considered the provisions of Section 102 of Penal Code
Malaysia , which provides that a person has the right to defend himself against any offence
which causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt , the court held that the
accused’s actions were justified under this provision , as he had a reasonable apprehension of
death or grievous hurt.

In the case of Che Omar bin Mohd Akhir v Public Prosecutor [1999] 2 MLJ 689 , the accused
was charged under with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code for causing the death of
one Tanjong binti Abdullah. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence ,
which included that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased and that he had
lied about his whereabouts on the night of the incident. The defence contended that there was
no motive for the accused to commit the offence and that the prosecution had not shown its
case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution, according to the defence, had not shown
any clear evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Thus , the court determined that
although circumstantial evidence suggested that the accused was guilty, it was insufficient to
establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Section 102 of the Penal Code Malaysia deals with the right of private defence of the body
and property. The case of Che Omar bin Mohd Akhir v PP is related to Section 102 in that it
highlights the importance of establishing a chain of evidence in cases where the defence is
based on the right of private defines. The case also emphasizes that the prosecution must
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused has a right to remain silent and
cannot be compelled to give evidence or to provide an explanation for his actions.

In the case of Herchun Singh & Ors v Public Prosecutor is a notable criminal case in
Malaysia that deals with the offence of abetment under Section 109 of the Penal Code.The
case is regarding three accused individuals who were charged with murder committed by
another person.The prosecution’s case was based of the fact that the three accused had given
a car to the murderer although knowingly that he had vile intention for committing the
murder.The prosecution also presented evidence that the three contact had been prior before
the murder occurred and after which shows their involvement in the crime .The court also
emphasized the importance of the principle presumption of innocence and the need for the In
terms of the elements of aiding and abetting and the significance of the prosecution meeting
the high level of proof necessary in criminal proceedings, Herchun Singh & Ors v. Public
Prosecutor is a key case in Malaysia's criminal law jurisprudence. Prosecutions to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
English Common Law

English common law , also known as the common law system is a legal system that
originated in England and has been influential in many countries around the world .It is based
on the principle of judicial precedent where decision made by judges in previous cases serve
as binding legal authority for similar future cases. An individual has the right to private
bodily defence under English common law if they believe they are the target of unlawful and
immediate physical threats. Under this right given in particular situation , an individual can
use necessary and proportionate force to defend themselves against the abuser for protection.
For instance, if someone is being physically assaulted, that person has the right to defend
himself with the necessary amount of force. People should use the least amount of force
necessary to defend themselves as long as the threat is present and must refrain from
employing force until the threat is no longer present. For instance, the victim must quit using
force if the attacker retreats after an attack.

Self-defence force must be proportional to the severity of the threat. This implies that people
cannot defend themselves or react to a threat with excessive aggression. Section 3 of the
Criminal Law Act of 1967 states that one may use reasonable force to prevent crime, make a
legal arrest, or protect another person from unfair harm. Under the limits of this section, any
person may lawfully use force to prevent a crime from occurring or to make a legitimate
arrest of a criminal, a suspect, or a person who is eluding capture. To protect oneself or others
from law-abiding aggressors, one may use force. It ensures that every use of force must
adhere to the standard of reasonableness and provides individuals with a legal justification to
do so under specified conditions.