The Blind Fire: Revill v Newbery (1996)
Case Essentials
Citation: Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239
Court: Court of Appeal (England)
Plaintiff: Mr. Revill (The burglar)
Defendant: Mr. Newbery (The 76-year-old allotment owner)
The Story Behind the Case
Mr. Newbery, a 76-year-old man, was deeply frustrated because thieves kept breaking into his brick shed to steal his tools. Determined to protect his property, he started sleeping inside the shed with a loaded 12-gauge shotgun. One night, Revill came to burglarize the shed and began trying to force the door open. Hearing the noise, the elderly Newbery panicked, grabbed his shotgun, and fired it blindly through a small hole in the shed door. The blast hit Revill in the arm and chest. Revill sued Newbery for his injuries. Newbery claimed self-defence and protection of property.
Facts
An elderly man, sleeping in his shed to guard his tools, fired a shotgun blindly through the door when he heard a burglar attempting to break in. The burglar was shot and sued for damages.
Issue
Is firing a deadly weapon blindly through a door a proportionate and reasonable use of force to defend property and deter a burglary?
Rule
Under the defence of Private Defence, the force used must be objectively reasonable and proportionate. Firing a deadly weapon blindly without seeing or assessing the actual threat is inherently disproportionate and negligent.
Analysis
The court ruled that while Mr. Newbery certainly had the right to defend himself and his property, firing a shotgun blindly into the dark went far beyond reasonable force. Because he couldn’t see what he was shooting at, he couldn’t possibly assess the level of danger—it could have been a violent attacker, but it also could have been an unarmed teenager or even someone lost. You cannot use lethal force to protect mere property, and you cannot shoot someone without first verifying they pose an immediate threat to your life. *(Note: Because Revill was committing a crime, his compensation was significantly reduced due to his own contributory negligence, but Newbery’s self-defence claim still failed to completely protect him from liability).*
Case Outcome: The defence of Private Defence FAILED. The court held that blindly firing a weapon is a disproportionate and unreasonable use of force, making the property owner liable for the burglar’s injuries.