Use of Force and
Human Rights
Use of force questions in the sergeants exam rest on a small set of provisions: s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967, s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, s.117 PACE and the Human Rights Act 1998. This page sets out each one in plain English with the section numbers, shows which Convention rights are absolute and which are qualified, flags the traps and gives you worked practice questions.
Independent information, not advice · Sources checked 4 October 2026 · England and Wales unless stated
Know the domestic test: force reasonable in the circumstances as the person genuinely believed them to be (s.3(1) CLA 1967 applied through s.76 CJIA 2008), where an honest mistake is allowed, disproportionate force is not reasonable, grossly disproportionate force is the limit in a householder case, and retreat is a factor not a duty. Know s.117 PACE and its consent exception. Know that Article 3 is absolute, that Articles 8, 10 and 11 are qualified, and that Article 2(2) allows lethal force only where it is no more than absolutely necessary for one of three listed purposes.
Use of force and human rights at a glance
This is a topic revision page for the sergeants exam. It sits alongside our shorter explainer, the use of force legal test for supervisors, and the sibling topic pages on non-fatal offences and defences and misconduct regulations and standards. Every statutory section number and quotation below was checked against legislation.gov.uk on 4 October 2026. The exam tests only the law as it appears in the Blackstone's Manuals edition for the sitting, so use this page to organise what you read there, not to replace it.
| Point | The rule |
|---|---|
| Domestic test | Force reasonable in the circumstances as the person believed them to be (s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967; s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) |
| Belief | Must be genuinely held; need not be reasonable or correct (s.76(4)); not if the mistake is down to voluntary intoxication (s.76(5)) |
| Proportionality | Disproportionate force is not reasonable (s.76(6)); in a householder case only grossly disproportionate force is not reasonable (s.76(5A)) |
| Retreat | A factor, not a duty (s.76(6A)) |
| PACE | s.117: reasonable force, if necessary, to exercise a PACE power, unless the power needs someone else's consent |
| Article 2 force test | Force 'no more than absolutely necessary' for one of three listed purposes (Article 2(2)) |
| Absolute right to know | Article 3: torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment |
| Qualified rights to know | Articles 8, 10 and 11 (and 9): lawful, listed aim, necessary in a democratic society |
| Public authority duty | s.6(1) HRA 1998 binds the police; claim under s.7(1)(a), one year unless a longer period is equitable (s.7(5)) |
| 2026 change we could verify | The Use of Force Standard of Professional Behaviour was reworded from 30 June 2026 (SI 2026/597). It is a conduct standard, not the criminal law test |
Our shorter guide describes the test as force that is reasonable in the circumstances as the officer honestly believed them to be, and no more than necessary. That is a simplified summary, and this page is more precise. The statute itself uses the word reasonable (s.3(1) CLA 1967) and s.76 then fills in what reasonable means: judged on the circumstances as believed, and not disproportionate (s.76(6)). The phrase 'no more than necessary' is not the wording of s.3 or s.76; necessity appears in s.76(7)(b), which treats honest and instinctive belief in necessity as strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken, and the nearest similar words are 'no more than absolutely necessary' in Article 2(2), a stricter test. If an exam option uses the phrase 'no more than necessary', treat it as loose shorthand, not as a separate statutory test, and prefer the statutory wording.
Where the power to use force comes from
Candidates often blur the sources. Keep them apart, because an exam option that attaches the wrong rule to the wrong source is a common wrong answer.
| Source | What it covers | Nature |
|---|---|---|
| Common law self-defence and defence of property | Judged through s.76 when the question is whether the degree of force was reasonable (s.76(2)(a) and (aa)) | Defence to a criminal charge |
| s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 | Reasonable force to prevent crime or to effect or assist in a lawful arrest | Defence to a criminal charge; replaces the common law on that point (s.3(2)) |
| s.117 PACE 1984 | Reasonable force, if necessary, in exercising a PACE power | A statutory authority attached to the power; not available where consent of a non-police person is required |
| Human Rights Act 1998 and the Convention | Public authorities must not act incompatibly with Convention rights (s.6) | Civil claims and a standard against which police action is judged |
| Standards of Professional Behaviour (Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, Sch. 2) | Use of force standard | Misconduct, a different question from criminal liability |
The last row matters for the exam. Whether an officer is guilty of an offence, whether a Convention right was breached and whether the Use of Force standard of professional behaviour was breached are three different questions, answered under three different regimes. A question that asks which test applies will tell you which question is being asked.
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and section 76 CJIA 2008
Section 3(1) CLA 1967 says a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. Section 3(2) says this replaces the common law rules on when force used for those purposes is justified. Part I of the 1967 Act does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Section 76 CJIA 2008 applies where, in proceedings for an offence, the issue is whether a defendant (D) can rely on a defence in s.76(2) and the question is whether the degree of force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The defences listed are common law self-defence, the common law defence of property, and s.3(1) of the 1967 Act (and its Northern Ireland equivalent). References to self-defence include acting in defence of another person (s.76(10)(b)), and references to the degree of force are to the type and amount of force used (s.76(10)(c)).
The sub-sections worth knowing by number
- s.76(3): reasonableness is decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be.
- s.76(4): whether D's belief was reasonable is relevant only to whether D genuinely held it. If D did genuinely hold it, D can rely on it whether or not it was mistaken, and whether or not any mistake was reasonable.
- s.76(5): D cannot rely on a mistaken belief attributable to voluntarily induced intoxication.
- s.76(6): outside a householder case, force that was disproportionate in the circumstances as D believed them to be is not to be regarded as reasonable.
- s.76(6A): a possibility of retreat is a factor to be taken into account so far as relevant, rather than a duty to retreat.
- s.76(7): a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action, and evidence that D only did what D honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose is strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken.
Section 76(9) says the section, except where it makes different provision for householder cases, is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences. It did not create a new test. For the older common law principle that an honest mistake can ground self-defence, the bank question sources point to R v Williams (Gladstone) (1984) 78 Cr App R 276.
An officer who honestly believes a person is about to attack them, and uses force that is not disproportionate to that threat as perceived, is judged on the perceived threat, even if the person turns out to have been unarmed. The same officer who used a baton on someone who had stopped resisting is judged on the circumstances as believed at that point. Hindsight is not the standard, but nor is a belief that was never genuinely held.
Householder cases
Section 76(5A) changes the proportionality limit only in a householder case. Section 76(8A) defines it. All four of these must be present:
- the defence concerned is common law self-defence;
- the force was used by D while in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or both);
- D was not a trespasser at the time; and
- D believed V to be in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.
Section 76(8B) covers a building where part is a dwelling where D lives and another part is a place of work for D or for another person who lives in that dwelling part, internally accessible from it: the place of work and the internal means of access are treated as part of the dwelling. So a newsagent who lives above her shop, with an internal staircase, can be in a householder case when she confronts an intruder in the shop. Vehicles and vessels count as buildings (s.76(8F)).
In a householder case, the question is whether the force was grossly disproportionate in the circumstances as D believed them to be. If it was, it is not reasonable. If it was only disproportionate, it can still be reasonable. The bank question on this topic cites R (Collins) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 33 (Admin) and R v Ray [2017] EWCA Crim 1391 for a two-stage approach: first, whether the force was grossly disproportionate; second, if not, whether it was nonetheless reasonable in all the circumstances.
The householder rule is tied to common law self-defence, to a dwelling or forces accommodation, to a non-trespassing defendant and to a believed trespasser. It does not apply to defence of property, or to the s.3(1) CLA 1967 defence. Do not assume that any force used at home is judged on the lenient limit, and do not assume it makes all lesser force lawful.
Section 117 PACE: reasonable force to exercise a PACE power
Section 117 PACE says that where any provision of the Act confers a power on a constable, and does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some person other than a police officer, the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.
- Reasonable and necessary: the section uses both words. Force is not authorised just because a power exists.
- Only PACE powers: the section refers to powers conferred by a provision of that Act. A power in another statute does not carry s.117 with it, so the officer relies on that statute's own words, if any, or on s.3 CLA 1967 and the common law.
- The consent exception: where the power may only be exercised with the consent of someone other than a police officer, s.117 gives no authority for force. Section 62 allows an intimate sample from a person in police detention only if an inspector authorises it and the appropriate consent is given, so force cannot be used to obtain one. A court or jury may draw proper inferences from an unjustified refusal (s.62(10), as the bank question explains).
Section 117 sits alongside, not instead of, s.3 CLA 1967. If an officer uses force to make an arrest, both can be in play. For the arrest and search powers themselves see PACE searches and arrest.
The Human Rights Act 1998 and the police
The Human Rights Act gives effect in UK law to the Convention rights set out in Schedule 1. Section 6(1) makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right. The Act does not list public authorities exhaustively: s.6(3) says the term includes courts and tribunals and any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature (s.6(3)(b)). A police force is the standard example of a public authority. An act includes a failure to act (s.6(6)).
Section 7(1)(a) lets a person who is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act bring proceedings against the authority. Section 7(5) says they must be brought within one year beginning with the date of the act, or a longer period the court or tribunal considers equitable. Candidates are tempted by three or six years, the familiar civil limitation periods, which is why a question on this tends to offer them.
Absolute, limited and qualified rights
The exam asks you to sort the Articles. A workable grouping, based on the text of Schedule 1:
| Article | Nature and limits | Police context |
|---|---|---|
| Article 2: right to life | No balancing paragraph. Article 2(2) lists the only circumstances in which force resulting in death is not a contravention, and requires it to be no more than absolutely necessary | Protects life; also positive obligations (Osman) |
| Article 3: torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Absolute: no second paragraph, no balancing, no public interest justification | Handcuffing, restraint, treatment in custody |
| Article 5: liberty and security | Deprivation of liberty only in the listed cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (5(1)(a) to (f)); plus rights to be told reasons promptly, to be brought promptly before a judge, and to take proceedings on lawfulness | Arrest, detention, language needs on arrest |
| Article 8: private and family life, home and correspondence | Qualified: interference must be in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for a listed aim | Searches of homes, surveillance, data |
| Article 10: freedom of expression | Qualified: formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for a listed aim | Protest messages, speech offences |
| Article 11: peaceful assembly and association | Qualified: restrictions prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for a listed aim; lawful restrictions on members of the police are expressly allowed | Protests, processions, police unions |
| Article 14: prohibition of discrimination | Secures the enjoyment of the Convention rights without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status | Applied alongside another Article |
Three groups to hold in your head. Absolute: Article 3, with no interference permitted for any aim. Limited: Articles 2 and 5, which list the only circumstances in which interference is allowed, rather than applying a general balancing test. Some texts call Article 2 absolute instead, because nothing outside Article 2(2) can justify force resulting in death, so check how your Manual labels it. Qualified: Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11, where interference must be prescribed by law, pursue a listed aim and be necessary in a democratic society, which in practice means proportionate. For Articles 10 and 11 the bank question cites the structured test in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39: is the objective sufficiently important, is the measure rationally connected to it, could a less intrusive measure be used, and has a fair balance been struck. The merits of the protesters' cause are not part of the test.
Note the Article 11(2) final sentence: the Article does not prevent lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. Article 11 is qualified anyway by the first sentence of Article 11(2); this sentence adds that restrictions on the police are expressly allowed, which is why a constable cannot claim an unrestricted right to join any trade union (see also s.64 Police Act 1996).
Article 2 and the lethal force test
Article 2(1) says everyone's right to life is protected by law. Article 2(2) says deprivation of life is not regarded as inflicted in contravention of the Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
- in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
- in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; or
- in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Compare this with the domestic test. Section 3 CLA 1967 and s.76 ask whether force was reasonable in the circumstances as believed. Article 2(2) uses the phrase 'no more than absolutely necessary', which is a stricter wording, and the purposes are listed. Preventing crime in general is not one of them. That is the single most examinable difference: do not choose 'reasonable in the circumstances' or 'proportionate to a legitimate aim' when the question is about the Article 2(2) wording.
The domestic criminal test turns on honest belief (s.76(3) and (4)). Article 2(2) does not mention the officer's belief in its text. How honest belief interacts with 'absolutely necessary' is a matter of case law that the Blackstone's chapter 1.4.5 (Use of Lethal Force and Human Rights) covers and that we have not reproduced. Read that chapter for the exam position, and do not assume the two tests are identical.
Articles 3, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 14 as they apply to police work
Article 3
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. There is no second paragraph, so no balancing exercise can make such treatment lawful, even where the aim seems compelling.
Article 5
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Deprivation of liberty is allowed only in the cases listed in Article 5(1) and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. The case an arresting officer relies on most is Article 5(1)(c): lawful arrest or detention, for the purpose of bringing the person before the competent legal authority, on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, or when reasonably considered necessary to prevent an offence or flight after one. Article 5(2) requires that an arrested person be informed promptly, in a language they understand, of the reasons for the arrest and of any charge. Article 5(3) requires a person arrested under 5(1)(c) to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. Article 5(4) gives anyone deprived of liberty by arrest or detention the right to take proceedings to challenge its lawfulness. The bank question on a man who does not understand English tests Article 5(2). See also PACE Code C detention and interviews.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence. Interference is permitted only if in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. A bank question asks you to spot the aim that is NOT in this list, so learn the list. Blackstone's covers this at chapter 3.13.2.
Articles 10 and 11
Article 10 protects freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. Article 11 protects freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions. Both are qualified. The key word in Article 11 is 'peaceful': an assembly whose organisers intend violence falls outside its protection, and failing to give notice of a procession does not of itself remove Convention protection (though it may be an offence for the organiser). Blackstone's chapters 3.8.2 and 3.8.3 cover these, and the sibling page on public order offences applies them to protest policing.
Article 14
The enjoyment of the Convention rights and freedoms must be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. The Article speaks of the enjoyment of the rights set out in the Convention, so treat it as working alongside the other Articles. The exam point is to read the list, including 'other status', and to learn Blackstone's chapter 3.16.2 for the detail.
Positive obligations
A common error is to read Article 2 as a restraint only. It also imposes positive obligations on the state. The operational duty in Osman v United Kingdom (1998), which the bank question on a threatened woman relies on, arises where the authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party. They must then take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might be expected to avoid that risk.
- Not a guarantee: the duty does not require the impossible or an unreasonable burden.
- Not limited to the police stopping themselves: it can require action against a third party's threat.
- No charge needed: the duty does not wait until the person threatening is charged.
For a sergeant, the practical reading is that a credible, specific, imminent threat to an identified person calls for documented, proportionate steps within your powers, not just a note on a log. Other Articles also carry positive elements. We have not verified the full scope of those from a primary source on this page, so check Blackstone's 1.4.5 and your Manuals.
Police officers' own position
Blackstone's 2026 chapter list has a separate section, 1.4.7 'Police Officers', under General Defences. We have not read that chapter, so we do not summarise its content here. What we can verify from legislation:
- Section 3(1) CLA 1967 applies to any person, not only to officers, and covers prevention of crime and lawful arrest.
- Section 76 applies to anyone relying on the listed defences in proceedings for an offence.
- Section 117 PACE is the specific statutory authority for a constable exercising a PACE power.
- The Human Rights Act binds the force as a public authority (s.6).
- The Standards of Professional Behaviour contain a Use of Force standard that applies to police officers (see next section).
Our shorter guide, the use of force legal test for supervisors, looks at the same ground from the supervisor's review point of view.
The 2026 changes: what we could verify
You may have heard that the legal test for police use of force changed in 2025 or 2026. We checked legislation.gov.uk on 4 October 2026 and found the following. Treat anything beyond this table as unverified.
| Area | Provision | What we found |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal law test | s.3 CLA 1967 and s.76 CJIA 2008 | No police-specific amendment found on legislation.gov.uk on 4 October 2026 |
| Misconduct standard | Schedule 2, Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, Use of Force | Reworded from 30 June 2026 by SI 2026/597; does not apply to pre-commencement allegations (regulation 3) |
| Anonymity for firearms officers | Crime and Policing Act 2026, ss.200 to 203 | Anonymity and reporting restrictions for authorised firearms officers charged with a qualifying offence; shown as in force from 29 June 2026 |
| Article 2 | Human Rights Act 1998 Sch. 1 | Text unchanged: 'no more than absolutely necessary' |
The conduct standard
The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/597) were made on 4 June 2026 and came into force on 30 June 2026, extending to England and Wales. They replace the use of force paragraph in Schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020. The text as originally made read: 'Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.' The substituted text reads: 'Police officers only use force when they honestly believe this to be necessary. The force used should be necessary, proportionate and reasonable.'
Regulation 3 says the amendment does not have effect for a pre-commencement allegation, or for an allegation that relates to a matter in respect of which a pre-commencement allegation has been made and that comes to attention on or after 30 June 2026 while the earlier allegation is still being handled under the old rules.
This is a change to the standard against which conduct is judged in misconduct proceedings. It is not an amendment to s.3 CLA 1967, s.76 CJIA 2008 or Article 2. A question about whether an officer committed an assault is still decided under the criminal law test above. A question about misconduct for use of force is decided under the Standards of Professional Behaviour, which now start from honest belief in necessity. See misconduct regulations and standards.
Whether the Blackstone's Manuals edition set for your sitting reflects the June 2026 change is something we could not check. The College says the exam tests only the law as it appears in the Manuals for the sitting and examines later changes only where it gives notice, so read the notice in the handbook for your sitting.
Separately, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 added anonymity and reporting restrictions for authorised firearms officers charged with a qualifying offence (ss.200 to 203, shown as in force from 29 June 2026). A qualifying offence in s.200(2) is one alleged to have been committed by D acting as an authorised firearms officer, involving the use of a lethal barrelled weapon to discharge a conventional round, where D was authorised to use that weapon with that round. That is a procedural protection after a charge, not a change to when force is lawful.
The traps
| Trap | What is actually right |
|---|---|
| Treating the belief as needing to be reasonable | Only genuine belief is needed (s.76(4)); reasonableness goes to whether it was genuine. Voluntary intoxication is the exception (s.76(5)) |
| Using 'reasonable' for Article 2 | Article 2(2) says 'no more than absolutely necessary', for one of three listed purposes. Preventing crime generally is not listed |
| Duty to retreat | There is none. It is a factor taken into account so far as relevant (s.76(6A)) |
| 'Grossly disproportionate' everywhere | Only in a householder case (s.76(5A)). Elsewhere disproportionate force is not reasonable (s.76(6)) |
| Assuming any home is a householder case | All four limbs of s.76(8A) must be met, and it is limited to common law self-defence |
| s.117 for every power | Only for PACE powers, and not where consent of a non-police person is needed, such as an intimate sample |
| Calling Article 11 absolute | It is qualified, and Article 11(2) allows lawful restrictions on the police |
| Calling Article 2 'qualified like Article 8' | It has no balancing paragraph; Article 2(2) lists the only permitted circumstances and demands absolute necessity |
| Three or six years for HRA claims | One year from the act, or longer if the court considers it equitable (s.7(5)) |
| Mixing conduct and criminal tests | The Use of Force Standard of Professional Behaviour is a separate test from s.3 and s.76 |
Worked questions from our verified bank
These 6 are original practice questions from our toolkit's bank. They are not real, past or leaked exam questions. Each has been checked against the legislation we cite on this page. Attempt each before reading the marked answer, and check the explanation against your Manuals.
Article 2(2) of the Convention permits a deprivation of life resulting from the use of force only where that force was no more than what?
Article 2(2) allows force resulting in death only where it is no more than absolutely necessary in defence of any person from unlawful violence, to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained, or in action lawfully taken to quell a riot or insurrection. This is a stricter test than the domestic 'reasonable force' test in s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967. Preventing crime in general is not one of the listed purposes.
Source: Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1, Article 2(2)
Which of the following Convention rights, given effect by the Human Rights Act 1998, is an absolute right that cannot be justified by any public interest, however serious?
Article 3 is an absolute right: there is no second paragraph allowing interference, and no balancing exercise can make torture or inhuman or degrading treatment lawful, even to obtain information that might save a life. Articles 8, 10 and 11 are qualified rights, each with a second paragraph allowing interference that is lawful, pursues a listed aim and is necessary in a democratic society.
Source: Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1, Articles 3, 8, 10 and 11
A woman tells your team that her ex-partner, recently released from prison, has sent messages saying he will kill her this weekend and has been seen near her address with a knife. As the duty sergeant, you consider the force's obligations under Article 2. Which statement best describes the positive obligation that may arise?
Article 2 imposes a positive operational duty, set out in Osman v United Kingdom (1998), where the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and failed to take reasonable measures within their powers to avoid it. It is not a guarantee of safety and does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden, but nor is it limited to the police refraining from taking life. A charge is not a precondition.
Source: Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1, Article 2; Osman v United Kingdom (1998)
A constable is confronted by an aggressive man in a narrow alley. She could have stepped back through a doorway but instead used her baton to defend herself. Reviewing the incident, a colleague says her failure to retreat makes the force automatically unlawful. Under s.76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, how is the possibility of retreat treated?
Section 76(6A) provides that a possibility that the person could have retreated is to be considered, so far as relevant, as a factor in deciding whether the force was reasonable, rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat. It is therefore neither a duty nor irrelevant. The 'grossly disproportionate' wording applies only to householder cases under s.76(5A), and even there it describes force that cannot be reasonable.
Source: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s.76(5A), (6) and (6A)
A suspect in police detention is suspected of a sexual offence. An inspector has authorised the taking of an intimate sample, but the suspect refuses to consent. An officer asks whether s.117 PACE allows reasonable force to be used to take the sample. What is the correct answer?
Section 117 PACE allows reasonable force, if necessary, only where a provision confers a power on a constable and does not provide that it may only be exercised with the consent of some person other than a police officer. Section 62 requires both inspector authorisation and the appropriate consent for an intimate sample, so force cannot be used. Under s.62(10), a court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper from a refusal without good cause.
Source: PACE 1984 ss.62(1) and (10) and 117
A newsagent lives in the flat above her shop, which is connected to the shop by an internal staircase. At 2am she hears an intruder in the shop, goes downstairs and strikes him with a heavy torch, believing he is a burglar. She claims self-defence. Which statement is correct?
Section 76(8B) treats a place of work that is internally accessible from the dwelling of a person who works there, and the internal access between them, as part of the dwelling for householder purposes. In a householder case, force that is grossly disproportionate is never reasonable under s.76(5A); force that is disproportionate but not grossly so may still be reasonable in all the circumstances. The second option is wrong because the gross disproportion limit still applies.
Source: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s.76(5A), (8A) and (8B)
There are more questions in our exam prep toolkit (our own product, which is not endorsed by or affiliated with the College of Policing or Oxford University Press), and a free timed set in the free mini mock. No practice score predicts your result.
Blackstone's chapter map
These chapter numbers come from Appendix A of the College's 2026 candidate handbook (September 2025), which lists the Blackstone's 2026 edition. We could not open the 2027 handbook's Appendix A, so we do not know that the 2027 edition has the same numbering. Check the contents page of the edition for your sitting before you rely on any number here.
| Chapter | Title (2026 list) | Use it for |
|---|---|---|
| 1.4.5 | Use of Lethal Force and Human Rights | Article 2 and lethal force; read with the Article 2 section above |
| 1.4.6 | Use of Force to Defend, Prevent Crime and to Arrest | s.3 CLA 1967, s.76 CJIA 2008, common law self-defence, householder cases |
| 1.4.7 | Police Officers | The position of police officers specifically. We have not seen this chapter's text, so use it to check how it treats officers' use of force |
| 3.8.2 | Article 10: Freedom of expression | Qualified right; protests and speech |
| 3.8.3 | Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association | Peaceful assembly; police restrictions |
| 3.13.2 | Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Home and Correspondence | Qualified right; search, surveillance, information |
| 3.16.2 | Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination | Linked to the other Convention rights |
| 3.17.2 | The Standards of Professional Behaviour | Where the Use of Force standard sits; see the 2026 changes section |
Scenarios
These are invented illustrations, not real incidents. They show how to work through the tests.
Checklist before the exam
- I can state s.3(1) CLA 1967 and say what s.76 adds, by sub-section number.
- I know honest belief need not be reasonable, and the intoxication exception.
- I can distinguish disproportionate (s.76(6)) from grossly disproportionate (s.76(5A)) and list the four limbs of a householder case.
- I know retreat is a factor, not a duty.
- I can state s.117 PACE and give the consent exception with an example.
- I can sort the Articles into absolute, limited and qualified, and recite the three Article 2(2) purposes.
- I know the Osman duty and what it does not require.
- I know that the Use of Force standard of professional behaviour changed on 30 June 2026 and that it is a separate test.
- I have checked the Blackstone's contents page for the edition I am sitting, and the College notice for my sitting.
For the next step, see how to pass the sergeants exam.
Not verified
- We have not read Blackstone's chapters 1.4.5, 1.4.6, 1.4.7, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.13.2 or 3.16.2. Their content, and what they emphasise, may differ from this page. We took the titles from the College's 2026 handbook Appendix A.
- We could not open the 2027 handbook Appendix A, so we do not know the 2027 edition's chapter numbers.
- We did not verify the case law on how honest belief interacts with the 'absolutely necessary' test in Article 2, or the duty to investigate deaths. Check chapter 1.4.5.
- We did not verify the scope of positive obligations under Articles other than Article 2.
- We did not verify whether the Government or the College has announced any further change to the legal test for use of force beyond SI 2026/597 and the firearms officer anonymity provisions. We found none on legislation.gov.uk, but absence there is not proof that none is planned, and statutory guidance is not on legislation.gov.uk.
- We did not verify whether the 2026 Manuals reflect SI 2026/597, or whether the College has given notice that it will be examined.
- We did not check police firearms or Taser guidance, such as College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice, because those pages were not reachable.
- The cases named here (Williams (Gladstone), Collins, Ray, Osman, Bank Mellat) are taken from the cited sources of our verified bank questions; we did not independently read the judgments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal test for use of force by a police officer?
In a criminal case the question is whether the force was reasonable in the circumstances as the officer believed them to be. That comes from s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 (force reasonable in the circumstances to prevent crime or make a lawful arrest), applied through s.76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The belief only has to be genuinely held, not reasonable, but force that is disproportionate in those circumstances is not treated as reasonable.
Does the officer's belief have to be reasonable?
No. Under s.76(4) the reasonableness of the belief is relevant only to whether it was genuinely held. If it was genuinely held, the officer can rely on it even if it was mistaken and even if the mistake was unreasonable. The exception in s.76(5) is a mistake caused by voluntarily induced intoxication.
What is the difference between disproportionate and grossly disproportionate force?
Outside a householder case, force that is disproportionate in the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be is not to be regarded as reasonable (s.76(6)). In a householder case the bar is higher: only force that is grossly disproportionate is treated as unreasonable (s.76(5A)). Force that is disproportionate but not grossly so can still be reasonable in a householder case, depending on all the circumstances.
Is there a duty to retreat before using force?
No. Section 76(6A) says the possibility of retreat is a factor to be taken into account so far as relevant, rather than giving rise to a duty to retreat. It is neither a duty nor irrelevant. A question that offers 'there is a duty to retreat where safe' or 'retreat is irrelevant' is wrong either way.
When can a constable use force under s.117 PACE?
Where a provision of PACE confers a power on a constable and does not make that power exercisable only with the consent of someone other than a police officer, the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in exercising it. An intimate sample, which needs the appropriate consent under s.62, is the standard example of a power where s.117 does not authorise force. Powers outside PACE do not carry s.117 with them.
Which Convention rights are absolute?
Article 3 (no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) is the one the exam leans on: it has no second paragraph allowing interference. Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 are qualified rights, each with a second paragraph allowing interference that is prescribed by law, pursues a listed aim and is necessary in a democratic society. Article 2 is in a category of its own: it has no balancing paragraph, but Article 2(2) lists the only circumstances in which force that results in death is not a breach.
What is the Article 2 test for lethal force?
Article 2(2) says deprivation of life is not a contravention where it results from force that is 'no more than absolutely necessary' in defence of any person from unlawful violence, to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained, or to quell a riot or insurrection. Preventing crime generally is not on that list. Its wording is stricter than the domestic reasonable force test in s.3 CLA 1967.
Does Article 2 only stop the police taking life?
No. It also imposes positive obligations. The Osman v United Kingdom (1998) duty arises where the authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party, and they must take measures within their powers that, judged reasonably, might be expected to avoid the risk. It is not a guarantee of safety and does not impose an impossible burden.
Is Article 14 a free-standing right?
Not in the way the other Articles are. Article 14 says Convention rights must be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. The exam point to learn is that it protects the enjoyment of the other Convention rights. Check the detail in Blackstone's chapter 3.16.2, because we have not reproduced its wording here.
Are the police bound by the Human Rights Act?
Yes. Section 6(1) HRA 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right, and a police force and its officers are the standard example of a public authority. A person who says their rights were breached can bring proceedings under s.7(1)(a), generally within one year of the act complained of, or a longer period the court considers equitable (s.7(5)).
Can a police officer join a trade union under Article 11?
Article 11(2) says the Article does not prevent lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. Domestic law then restricts it: s.64(1) Police Act 1996 says a member of a police force shall not be a member of any trade union, or of an association aiming to control or influence police pay, pensions or conditions of service, subject to the exceptions in that section (for example s.64(2), for someone already a union member before joining). Treat Article 11 as qualified, not absolute.
Did the legal test for police use of force change in 2026?
We found one verified change to a conduct rule and one procedural change, and neither is to the criminal law test. The first is to the misconduct standard. The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/597), in force from 30 June 2026, replaced the use of force Standard of Professional Behaviour. The second is the Crime and Policing Act 2026, ss.200 to 203 (in force from 29 June 2026), which gives authorised firearms officers charged with a qualifying offence anonymity and reporting protections but does not change when force is lawful. The wording of s.3 CLA 1967 and s.76 CJIA 2008 on legislation.gov.uk showed no police-specific change when we checked on 4 October 2026. See the section on the 2026 changes below.
Will the exam test the 2026 change to the conduct standard?
We cannot say. The College says the exam tests only the law as it appears in the Manuals edition for the sitting, and that later changes are examined only if the College gives notice. Check the candidate handbook for the sitting you are taking and the Blackstone's chapter on the Standards of Professional Behaviour (3.17.2 in the 2026 edition list) rather than relying on this page.
Sources and how we checked them
Every factual claim on this page was written from the sources below, read on 4 October 2026. Rules and figures change, so check the source for the date you are reading this. Where we could not confirm something from an official or independent source, the page says so rather than guessing. Spotted something out of date? See our corrections policy.
- legislation.gov.uk: Criminal Law Act 1967, section 3 (use of force in making arrest, etc.) — s.3(1) 'such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large'; s.3(2) replaces the common law rules on when force for those purposes is justified. Part I does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76 (reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.) — s.76(2) defences covered; (3) circumstances as D believed them to be; (4) and (5) honest belief and voluntary intoxication; (5A) grossly disproportionate in a householder case; (6) disproportionate otherwise; (6A) retreat; (7) honest and instinctive necessity; (8A) to (8F) householder case; (9) and (10) purpose and definitions. (5A) and (8A) to (8F) were inserted by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (25 April 2013), and (2)(aa) and (6A) by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (14 May 2013), according to the revision notes. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 117 (power of constable to use reasonable force) — reasonable force, if necessary, where a PACE provision confers a power on a constable and does not provide that it may only be exercised with the consent of someone other than a police officer. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 62 (intimate samples) — an intimate sample from a person in police detention only if an inspector authorises it and the appropriate consent is given. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: Human Rights Act 1998, Schedule 1 Part I (the Convention rights) — text of Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 14 as given effect in UK law; Article 2(2) 'no more than absolutely necessary'; Article 11(2) final sentence on restrictions for members of the police. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: Human Rights Act 1998, sections 6 and 7 — s.6(1) unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with a Convention right; s.6(3)(b) public functions; s.7(1)(a) proceedings against the authority and s.7(5) one-year period, or longer if equitable. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: Police Act 1996, section 64 (membership of trade unions) — s.64(1) bars a member of a police force from membership of a trade union or of an association aiming to influence police pay, pensions or conditions; s.64(2) allows continued membership with the chief officer's consent where the person was a member before joining. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/597) — made 4 June 2026, in force 30 June 2026, England and Wales; replaces the use of force paragraph of Schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020; regulation 3 transitional provision for pre-commencement allegations. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/4), Schedule 2 (Standards of Professional Behaviour) — current text of the Use of Force standard as amended; the original 2020 text on the 'made' version is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/4/made. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- legislation.gov.uk: Crime and Policing Act 2026, sections 200 to 203 and 255(3)(h) — anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences; ss.200 to 203 in force at the end of two months beginning with the day the Act was passed, shown on the site as in force from 29 June 2026. We read the full Act text for any amendment to s.3 CLA 1967, s.76 CJIA 2008 or Article 2 and found none. Read 4 October 2026 (accessed 4 October 2026)
- College of Policing: NPPF step two legal examinations candidate handbook 2026 (PDF, September 2025), Appendix A — list of Blackstone's 2026 chapters used in the chapter map below (1.4.5 to 1.4.7, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 3.13.2, 3.16.2 and 3.17.2). The 2027 handbook Appendix A could not be fetched (accessed 4 October 2026)
On this topic elsewhere
More in this guide series
Practice and tools
Disclaimer
PolicePay.co.uk is an independent guide. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by or produced by the College of Policing or Oxford University Press (Blackstone's). Exam rules, dates, syllabus editions and prices change, so check the College of Policing's current candidate handbook and exam pages before you register or buy. Practice material on this site is original and is not real exam content. Details apply to England and Wales unless stated. Details are as checked on 4 October 2026.