Self-defence in robbery cases: a legal analysis

On 22 August 2024, an incident took place in Bogotá near Carrera 70 and Calle 26, where the driver of an Audi with registration KGB 050 was involved in a robbery that ended in the death of one of the attackers. According to preliminary Metropolitan Police reports, two men on motorcycles intercepted the driver with firearms, took his mobile phone and blocked his path. In response, the driver ran over one of the motorcyclists, who died beneath the car.

Self-defence, provided for in Article 32 of the Colombian Criminal Code, establishes that an act in defence of oneself or others may be justified if it is necessary and proportionate to a ongoing and unlawful attack. In this context, paragraph 6 of Article 32 provides: “There shall be no criminal liability where (…) a person acts out of the need to defend their own right or that of another against an unjust attack that is current or imminent, provided that the defence is proportionate to the attack. Self-defence is presumed where a person repels an intruder who unlawfully attempts to enter or has entered their dwelling or its immediate appurtenances.”

To determine whether the driver’s conduct qualifies as self-defence, it is necessary to analyse the need to defend oneself, the existence of an ongoing or imminent attack on one’s own rights or those of another, and the proportionality of the response to that attack.

The principle of necessity requires the response to an attack to be the only viable alternative for protection. In this case, the Audi driver faced a highly dangerous situation: two armed men intercepted his vehicle, took his phone and blocked his path, creating an imminent and direct threat. The need for defence arose from the urgency of protecting himself from a violent and potentially lethal attack, since the attackers were armed and could have posed an additional risk.

Second, the attack by the men on motorcycles was current and unlawful because they used firearms to commit the robbery and block the vehicle’s path. Such an attack threatens both property and the driver’s physical safety, justifying the need for an immediate response to neutralise the threat.

Finally, proportionality requires that the response not exceed what is necessary to repel the attack. In this case, the driver used his vehicle to overcome the obstruction created by the attackers. Because they were armed, the threat posed an imminent risk to his life, and the driver had no other effective means of defending himself than using his vehicle. The lethal force that may result from the use of the car is justified by the seriousness of the armed threat, which amounted to a threat of death.

Although running over the motorcyclist resulted in his death, proportionality must be assessed in light of the fact that the armed attack heightened the need for a response capable of ensuring the driver’s safety. The response may be considered proportionate if using the vehicle is determined to have been the only effective and reasonable means of protection against the imminent threat of death.

In the case described, the application of self-defence under Article 32 of the Colombian Criminal Code is justified by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The need for defence arose from the highly dangerous situation created by the armed attackers, who not only committed a robbery but also blocked the vehicle’s path and posed a direct and imminent threat to the driver’s safety. Proportionality is satisfied insofar as using the vehicle as a means of defence was an appropriate and reasonable response to the lethal threat posed by the armed men.

The driver’s intervention, although it resulted in the death of one motorcyclist, may be considered proportionate because the risk posed by firearms justified a forceful response to repel the attack and protect his life. The proportionality assessment must recognise that, in situations of serious and imminent danger, using means capable of causing lethal effects may be necessary and justified to ensure self-defence.

Therefore, in the context of the facts described, the Audi driver’s action aligns with the requirements of self-defence: he acted to protect his life against an imminent threat and used the available means proportionately to the attack he faced.

The final determination of whether the driver’s conduct was justified must be made by the competent judicial authority, taking into account every aspect of the incident and the specific circumstances of the case.