According to AG v. Dwyer (1972), what is the outcome if someone uses more force than necessary but believed it was appropriate?

In the case of AG v. Dwyer (1972), the court provided important clarification on the principles surrounding self-defense and the use of force. The ruling acknowledged that while an individual may use force in self-defense, this force must be proportionate and necessary in the circumstances. If someone exceeds that necessary level of force—even if they genuinely believed their actions were justified—this can lead to liability for manslaughter rather than outright murder.

The emphasis in this context is on the distinction between the belief in the necessity of using force and the actual proportionality of that force. The belief that one is acting in self-defense does not absolve a person of liability if the response is excessive. Thus, the individual can be found guilty of manslaughter, recognizing the reality that their reaction, while perhaps instinctively perceived as self-protective, ultimately resulted in inappropriate and disproportionate force.

This outcome highlights a critical element of criminal law: a subjective belief in the justification of one’s actions does not negate the possibility of being found guilty if those actions do not align with legal standards of necessary and proportional self-defense.