In the context of self-defence, successive governments have taken an inconsistent approach to using public opinion as a basis for reforming criminal law. In the case of householders acting in self-defence, reform was based on limited public opinion whereas in the case of the domestic abuse victim who uses force against their abuser reform proposals were rejected without considering public opinion. There is a limited evidence base of actual public perceptions in either situation and yet their value is substantial when considering the role of lay decision-makers in the criminal trial and the need to maintain public trust in the system. This paper explores theoretical justifications for the inclusion of public perceptions in the development of criminal defences. Using a social constructivist approach, the authors consider public perceptions, as found in a small-scale empirical study, towards self-defence claims in both a householder and domestic abuse context, concluding that the public can in some circumstances find that the latter is more deserving of a claim than the former.
