When the Right Extends to Causing Death

In one line

The right extends to killing the aggressor in seven situations of danger to the body and four of danger to property, in every one of them subject to section 37, and nowhere else.

Why the question is set this way

The two limbs of the right differ in what they run against, but they are built the same way. Each has a section that lists the situations in which death may be caused, and a section that says what is permitted when no situation in the list is made out. Learning the eleven entries is the single highest return in this topic, because MU has asked for them as a short question, as half of a long question on both limbs, and as the sting in a problem.

Both lists begin with the same seven words: under the restrictions specified in section 37. Nothing in either list is a permission to kill. Each entry says only that the ceiling has been lifted, and section 37(2) still forbids inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence.

The seven for the body: section 38

The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right is of any of these descriptions.

1. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of the assault.
2. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of the assault.
3. An assault with the intention of committing rape.
4. An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
5. An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
6. An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
7. An act of throwing or administering acid, or an attempt to throw or administer acid, which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.

Two of the seven are defined by what the defender apprehends, and five by what the assailant intends. That division is worth carrying into an answer. Entries 1, 2 and 7 turn on a reasonable apprehension, so they can be made out without proving anything about the assailant's state of mind. Entries 3 to 6 turn on the assailant's intention, so they require evidence of what he meant to do.

Entry 7 is the newest. An answer that lists six and stops is answering the law as it stood before acid attacks were separately provided for.