Restore Britain's policy on self-defence

Pepper spray is currently a prohibited weapon under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, which covers weapons designed to discharge a noxious liquid or gas, and carrying a corrosive substance in public is an offence under section 6 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. Restore Britain would repeal both provisions “with immediate effect” so that law-abiding adults could carry pepper spray.

The paper argues that a formal right to self-defence means little without the practical means to exercise it, especially for women, older people and those of slight build facing larger attackers. It describes pepper spray as the best available non-lethal option, and the party notes that it is a tool the police themselves use.

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 requires occupiers to take reasonable care towards people other than visitors, whether or not they have a lawful reason to be there. The paper argues this has allowed injured burglars to sue. It cites Revill v Newbery (1995), in which a householder cleared of criminal charges was ordered to pay damages to a burglar he had shot, and a case in which an elderly burglary victim was told by her council to remove barbed wire from her home.

Rather than repeal the Act, Restore Britain would add the amendment proposed by Lord Stanley of Alderley in 1984 and rejected by the House of Lords: that no duty is owed to anyone on the premises who has committed, or intends to commit, a criminal offence there. The party would pass it in its original wording and name it after him.

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 came into force on 1 April 2024 and extended Scotland's offences of stirring up hatred. The paper's objection is that the Scottish Parliament rejected a “dwelling defence”, so the offence can apply to things said in private, and that the Act allows warrants to search homes where the offence is suspected.

Restore Britain would repeal the Act in full using Westminster's powers under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, amending section 35 if necessary so that it clearly covers repealing existing Holyrood laws as well as blocking new ones. The party's wider speech proposals are on the free speech and civil liberties page.

The paper appeared as the government brought forward its Courts and Tribunals Bill, which would allow more criminal cases to be tried without a jury. Restore Britain argues that juries of ordinary citizens are more likely than professional judges to acquit people who used force to defend themselves or others.

It commits a Restore Britain government to preserving trial by jury in all criminal cases, particularly those involving self-defence or defence of property, and to reinstating jury trials if they are abolished.

Under the Crime and Courts Act 2013, force used by a householder against an intruder cannot count as reasonable if it was “grossly disproportionate”; in other cases, the bar is force that was disproportionate. The paper argues that later rulings, notably R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice in 2016, which held that a householder's force must still be reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be, have left the law more ambiguous than Parliament intended.

Restore Britain would amend section 43 of the 2013 Act so that no proceedings alleging excessive force in self-defence, at home or in public, could begin without the Attorney General's consent. The model is section 27 of the Public Order Act 1986, which already requires that consent for racial hatred offences. A matching amendment to section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 would cover people who use force to prevent crime or make a citizen's arrest.