Pegram was an appeal concerning the extent to which a police officer is considered as acting in the course of his or her duties when using force on another, and whether self-defence may justify the conduct of a defendant who assaults a police officer in the execution of that duty. The appeal also concerned an alleged misdirection as to the appellant’s character; that, however, is outside the scope of this comment. John Pegram (P) took part in a demonstration in Bristol, protesting another demonstration. The police wished to keep the two demonstrations separate and away from the public. It was accepted that P had strayed away from the pack and had diverted away from the agreed route. The victim, PC Millett, grabbed P by the arm in order to get his attention and warn him that he must rejoin the agreed route or he may be liable for a public order offence. During the confrontation (half-way through the warning according to the officer), P swung his arm around and struck the officer in the face. P contended that such contact was accidental. P was convicted of an offence contrary to s 89(1) of the 1989 Act noted above in the magistrates’ court. P unsuccessfully appealed to the Crown Court which reheard the case in full. The Crown Court preferred the evidence of PC Millett finding that he was acting in the course of his duties in taking hold of P. Further, the Court found that ‘[n]o prima facie case of self-defence was raised’, and instead found the defendant liable for the offence based on the recklessness of his conduct. Interestingly, P did not run self-defence in either his summary trial or first appeal to the Crown Court; this being one of the issues raised on appeal to the Divisional Court. P requested the learned judge state a case for the opinion of the Divisional Court. This request was initially rejected, however, following a successful judicial review application (R (on the application of Pegram) v Bristol Crown Court [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)), the case was stated to the Divisional Court. Pegram, therefore, concerns the appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court was tasked with considering three points of law, as follows (at [2]):

中文翻译：

---

气氛和背景：在执行职责和报复性武力中使用武力：Pegram v DPP [2019] EWHC 2673（管理员）

Pegram 是一项上诉，涉及警官在对另一人使用武力时被视为在履行职责的范围内行事，以及自卫是否可以证明在执行过程中袭击警官的被告的行为是正当的那个职责。上诉还涉及据称对上诉人性格的误导；然而，这超出了本评论的范围。约翰佩格拉姆（P）参加了布里斯托尔的示威活动，抗议另一场示威活动。警方希望将两次示威分开，远离公众。承认 P 偏离了背包并偏离了约定的路线。受害者，PC Millett，抓住 P 的手臂以引起他的注意并警告他必须重新加入约定的路线，否则他可能会违反公共秩序。在对抗期间（根据警官的说法，警告进行到一半），P 挥动手臂并击中了警官的脸。P争辩说这种接触是偶然的。P 在地方法院被判犯有违反上述 1989 年法令第 89(1) 条的罪行。P 向重审此案的皇家法院提出上诉，但未成功。皇家法院更喜欢 PC Millett 的证据，即他是在履行其职责的过程中采取行动来控制 P。此外，法院认为“提出了[n]o 初步证据确凿的自卫案件”，而取而代之的是认定被告因其行为的鲁莽而对犯罪负责。有趣的是，P 在他的简易审判或向刑事法庭的第一次上诉中都没有进行自卫；这是向分区法院上诉时提出的问题之一。P 要求博学的法官陈述案件以征求分区法院的意见。该请求最初被拒绝，但在成功的司法审查申请（R（关于 Pegram 的申请）诉布里斯托尔皇家法院 [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)）之后，此案被提交给了分区法院。因此，Pegram 涉及通过向分区法院陈述的案件的上诉。分庭法院的任务是考虑以下三点法律问题（见 [2]）：P 要求博学的法官陈述案件以征求分区法院的意见。该请求最初被拒绝，但在成功的司法审查申请（R（关于 Pegram 的申请）诉布里斯托尔皇家法院 [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)）之后，此案被提交给了分区法院。因此，Pegram 涉及通过向分区法院陈述的案件的上诉。分庭法院的任务是考虑以下三点法律问题（见 [2]）：P 要求博学的法官陈述案件以征求分区法院的意见。该请求最初被拒绝，但在成功的司法审查申请（R（关于 Pegram 的申请）诉布里斯托尔皇家法院 [2019] EWHC 965 (Admin)）之后，此案被提交给了分区法院。因此，Pegram 涉及通过向分区法院陈述的案件的上诉。分庭法院的任务是考虑以下三点法律问题（见 [2]）：