What is the ratio in R v Martin (Anthony)?

Psychiatric evidence about a defendant's mental condition can be relevant to determining what constitutes reasonable force in self-defence, though the test remains objective.

What did the court decide in R v Martin (Anthony)?

The Court of Appeal substituted murder with manslaughter, allowing psychiatric evidence to inform the reasonableness assessment in self-defence.

Why is R v Martin (Anthony) important for self-defence law?

It clarified how psychiatric evidence can be incorporated into the objective reasonableness test without making self-defence purely subjective.

What is the ratio in R v Martin (Anthony)?

Psychiatric evidence about a defendant's mental condition can be relevant to determining what constitutes reasonable force in self-defence, though the test remains objective.

What did the court decide in R v Martin (Anthony)?

The Court of Appeal substituted murder with manslaughter, allowing psychiatric evidence to inform the reasonableness assessment in self-defence.

Why is R v Martin (Anthony) important for self-defence law?

It clarified how psychiatric evidence can be incorporated into the objective reasonableness test without making self-defence purely subjective.

Criminal1 min read

R v Martin (Anthony)

[2001] EWCA Crim 2245Court of Appeal2001

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Farmer's excessive force against burglars cannot be justified by psychiatric condition”

Facts

Tony Martin, a farmer, shot two burglars in his home, killing one and wounding another. Martin suffered from a paranoid personality disorder and had been the victim of previous burglaries. He used a pump-action shotgun and shot the burglars as they were retreating.

Issues

Whether psychiatric evidence could support a defence of self-defence or duress of circumstances when excessive force was used against burglars in the defendant's home.

Held

The Court of Appeal upheld Martin's conviction for manslaughter (reduced from murder) but rejected his grounds of appeal based on self-defence and duress of circumstances.

Significance

This case reinforced the proportionality requirement in self-defence and clarified that mental health conditions cannot justify excessive defensive force. It influenced subsequent legislative reforms regarding householder defences.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Martin (Anthony). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Martin (Anthony) [2001] EWCA Crim 2245

Criminal LawSelf-DefenceDuress

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.