2.3 Criminal Code Section 25 (Protection) & Section 34 (Self-Defence)

Criminal Code Section 25 (Protection) & Section 34 (Self-Defence)

Security professionals in British Columbia carry a significant legal responsibility when applying physical force. The authority to use force is strictly regulated by federal criminal law and provincial security standards. Security personnel are not exempt from the criminal law; any force applied that is not explicitly protected by statute constitutes a criminal offence, such as assault (s. 265), assault causing bodily harm (s. 267), or aggravated assault (s. 268). This section examines Section 25, Section 26, and Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, alongside the National Use of Force Framework (NUFF).

---

Criminal Code Section 25: Protection of Persons Acting Under Authority

Section 25(1) serves as the primary legal protection for security guards executing lawful duties (such as making a citizen's arrest under s. 494 or evicting a trespasser under s. 41).

                      Criminal Code Section 25(1) Requirements
                                         │
        ┌────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┐
        ▼                                ▼                                ▼
Authorized by Law                Reasonable Grounds               Necessary Force Only
┌───────────────────────────┐   ┌───────────────────────────┐   ┌───────────────────────────┐
│ Must be doing an act      │   │ Must believe on reasonable│   │ Must use ONLY as much     │
│ required or authorized by │   │ grounds that the force is │   │ force as is necessary for │
│ statute (e.g. s. 494).    │   │ necessary in context.     │   │ the authorized purpose.   │
└───────────────────────────┘   └───────────────────────────┘   └───────────────────────────┘

Criminal Code s. 25(1): "Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything as a private person... is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose."

Criminal Code Section 26: Excessive Force

Section 25 protection is strictly conditional. Section 26 of the Criminal Code creates explicit criminal liability for excessive force:

Criminal Code s. 26: "Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."

If a security guard is authorized to use physical control to restrain a shoplifter, but strikes the compliant or grounded suspect in anger, the protection under s. 25(1) is instantly forfeited, and the guard faces criminal prosecution under s. 26.

---

Criminal Code Section 34: Defence of Person (Self-Defence & Defence of Others)

Reformed under the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, Section 34 provides a unified statutory framework for self-defence and the defence of third parties. Section 34 replaces old, complex common-law rules with a clear Three-Part Test:

                       Section 34 Three-Part Statutory Test
                                         │
     ┌───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┐
     ▼                                   ▼                                   ▼
 1. Reasonable Belief             2. Defensive Purpose            3. Reasonableness of Act
┌─────────────────────────────┐  ┌─────────────────────────────┐  ┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ Believes on reasonable      │  │ Act is committed for the    │  │ The act committed is        │
│ grounds that force or a     │  │ explicit purpose of         │  │ reasonable in the           │
│ threat of force is present. │  │ defending self or another.  │  │ circumstances.              │
└─────────────────────────────┘  └─────────────────────────────┘  └─────────────────────────────┘

Statutory Reasonableness Factors under Section 34(2)

To determine whether a security guard's act was "reasonable in the circumstances" under Part 3 of the test, courts examine nine statutory factors under s. 34(2):

1. Nature of the Force or Threat: Was the threat verbal, physical, or lethal?
2. Imminence of the Threat: Was the threat immediate or distant?
3. Role of the Person in the Incident: Did the security officer provoke or escalate the situation?
4. Use or Threat of Weapons: Were weapons displayed, threatened, or used?
5. Physical Capabilities of Parties: Differences in size, age, gender, physical strength, and combat training between the subject and guard.
6. Relationship Between Parties: Any history of past interactions or threats.
7. Nature and Proportionality of Response: Was the physical force proportional to the threat faced?
8. Clear Availability of Alternatives: Could the guard have de-escalated, created distance, or retreated safely?
9. Lawfulness of Response: Was the guard acting under statutory legal authority?

---

The National Use of Force Framework (NUFF) & BC Model

The National Use of Force Framework (NUFF) is the continuous assessment model adopted across Canadian law enforcement and private security sectors in British Columbia.

                     National Use of Force Assessment Cycle
                                       │
                      ┌────────────────┴────────────────┐
                      ▼                                 ▼
             Subject Behavior                  Officer Response
        ┌─────────────────────────┐       ┌─────────────────────────┐
        │ • Cooperative           │ ════> │ • Officer Presence      │
        │ • Passive Resistant     │ ════> │ • Communication         │
        │ • Active Resistant      │ ════> │ • Physical Control Soft │
        │ • Combative             │ ════> │ • Physical Control Hard │
        │ • Grievous Harm/Death   │ ════> │ • Lethal Force          │
        └─────────────────────────┘       └─────────────────────────┘

Subject Behavior Categories & Authorized Officer Responses

---

De-Escalation Tactics and Conflict Resolution

Before resorting to physical force, security professionals must attempt tactical communication and de-escalation whenever safe to do so.

• Positioning & Distance: Maintain a professional stance at a safe distance (Reactionary Gap: at least 6 feet or 2 meters) to allow time to react to sudden movement.
• Tone & Language: Use calm, assertive, non-confrontational language. Avoid aggressive phrasing, insults, or profanity.
• Active Listening: Acknowledge the subject's concerns to defuse emotional escalation while maintaining firm boundaries regarding security rules.
• Strategic Disengagement: If physical force is not immediately required and the subject poses no safety threat to others, creating distance or awaiting police reinforcement is often the most prudent option.

---

Mandatory Incident Reporting and Documentation

Whenever physical force is applied—regardless of how minor—the security professional must complete a comprehensive Use-of-Force Incident Report prior to concluding their shift.

Essential Elements of a Use-of-Force Report

1. Time and Location: Exact date, time, weather, lighting, and environmental factors.
2. Subject Behavior: Detailed, objective description of the subject's actions, physical threats, verbal statements, and stance (avoiding subjective terms like "he was aggressive").
3. Officer Assessment: Subjective perception of risk based on the reactionary gap, physical size differences, and environmental hazards.
4. Force Applied: Step-by-step description of specific control holds, takedowns, or defensive techniques used.
5. Post-Incident Medical Care: Documentation of injury checks, first aid rendered, and ambulance or police involvement.

---

Worked Practical Scenario: Escalation from Passive to Active Resistance

Scenario: Security Officer Marcus orders an unauthorized individual to leave a hotel lobby. The subject refuses, sits on the floor, and goes limp (Passive Resistance). When Officer Marcus attempts to guide him by the arm, the subject suddenly pushes Marcus forcefully and swings a punch toward Marcus's head (Combative Behavior).

Legal & Tactical Response:

1. Initial Assessment: Marcus initially faced Passive Resistance, authorizing soft physical control (escort grip).
2. Behavioral Transition: The subject escalated directly to Combative Behavior by attempting to punch Marcus.
3. Force Justification under s. 34: Marcus has reasonable grounds to believe a force/threat of force is occurring. His defensive action (blocking the punch and executing a soft-tissue takedown) is for a defensive purpose and proportional to the strike attempt.
4. Section 25 & NUFF Alignment: Marcus transitions to Physical Control Hard (takedown and restraint) to secure the combative subject. Once the subject is handcuffed and compliant, Marcus immediately de-escalates to soft control, avoiding excessive force (s. 26).