Exceeding the limits of necessary defence refers to a situation in which a person protects themselves or someone else against a real, unlawful attack but goes beyond the permissible limits of defence. Serious injury to the attacker or the attacker's death does not, in itself, establish that the person defending themselves exceeded those limits. The legal assessment depends on the danger that existed when force was used, the purpose of the defender's actions, and how closely the defence corresponded to the nature and danger of the attack.
Necessary Defence and Exceeding Its Limits
Article 28 of the Criminal Code of Georgia gives a person the right to protect their own or another person's legally protected interests against an unlawful attack by causing harm to the attacker. Under paragraph 4 of the same article, the limits of necessary defence are exceeded when the defence is manifestly disproportionate to the nature and danger of the attack. The decisive factor is the manifest nature of that disparity, which must be established by the specific circumstances of the case.
According to the case law of the Supreme Court of Georgia, for the right to necessary defence to arise, the attack must be unlawful, real and immediate, and the defender must act for the purpose of protecting a legally protected interest. To assess these conditions, the court examines what prompted the person's actions and what they sought to achieve: whether they were trying to repel an existing danger or to harm another person in the absence of danger. The court reiterates the interpretation given in Ruling No. 770აპ-19 on this issue in paragraph 15.2 of Ruling No. 150აპ-25 of 16 July 2025.
The assessment begins by establishing the prerequisites for necessary defence. Only if those prerequisites exist does the question arise of whether the person exceeded the permissible limits of defence. If there was a real attack and a defensive purpose, but the force used was manifestly disproportionate to the nature and danger of the attack, the issue of exceeding those limits may arise. If there was no attack at all, or it had already ended and the person was seeking retaliation, the fact that the other party started the conflict is not sufficient to classify what happened as an excess of the limits of necessary defence.
How Are the Permissible Limits of Defence Assessed?
The permissible limits of necessary defence cannot be assessed solely by reference to the means used. Relevant factors include the number of attackers, the parties' physical capabilities, the objects used, and the force and direction of the blows. The assessment must also take account of how unexpected the attack was, where it occurred, and how quickly events unfolded. The defender's choice must be assessed in light of the danger that existed at the time and their actual capabilities. An alternative conceived later in a calm setting does not establish that it was genuinely available and effective during the attack. Accordingly, using a knife or another dangerous object against an unarmed attacker does not, in itself, mean that the limits of necessary defence were exceeded. Group violence by unarmed individuals can also pose a real threat to life. However, the fact of an attack does not justify the use of a weapon in every case. In each case, the conclusion must be based on the actual danger posed by the attack and whether it could have been stopped effectively by causing comparatively less harm to the attacker.
The Supreme Court of Georgia adopts a similar approach in its case law, referring to a "comparatively less harmful means of defence." When a court considers the means of defence used to have been excessive, it must explain what specific, less harmful action was available to the defender and how effectively that action would have stopped the attack. The mere assumption that the defender "could have acted differently" does not establish that the defence was manifestly disproportionate.
Is a Person Required to Flee?
Considering a less harmful means of defence does not impose a duty to flee or seek help. Article 28(2) of the Criminal Code of Georgia recognises the right to necessary defence regardless of whether the defender could have avoided the attack or called on others for assistance. The possibility of retreat therefore does not, in itself, exclude the right to defend oneself. The necessity of defensive action referred to in the court's interpretation must also be understood in conjunction with this provision.
Defensive Purpose and the Perception of Danger
To establish a defensive purpose, the person's explanation must be assessed alongside the facts of the case. Simply saying "I was defending myself" does not establish that purpose. Relevant considerations include what the person did to stop the attack, how the confrontation developed, and whether they stopped using force when the danger ended. These circumstances must show whether the actions were defensive or aimed at retaliation.
At the same time, a defensive purpose does not exclude knowingly causing injury. A defender may realise that they will harm the attacker and seek to stop the attack by doing so. Intentionally causing injury is therefore not sufficient to rule out necessary defence. The decisive questions are the circumstances in which force was used, the purpose it served, and whether it corresponded to the danger that existed.
Conversely, a person's subjective perception cannot replace the actual existence of an attack. If there was no real attack, the incident cannot automatically be treated as necessary defence or as an excess of its limits. In that situation, any mistake about the existence of danger and its effect on liability must be assessed separately. References to the subjective element in the case law of the Supreme Court of Georgia do not remove the need to establish a real and immediate attack.
When Does an Attack End?
The point at which an attack ends often determines the legal assessment of the case. A person may initially be defending themselves but then continue using force after the danger has ceased. Each subsequent act must therefore be assessed in light of the circumstances at that particular moment. A brief pause or a step backwards by the attacker does not always mean that the attack has ended. It is necessary to establish whether the danger actually ceased and how the defender perceived the situation.
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Georgia
An example is Supreme Court Ruling No. 575აპ-25 of 24 November 2025. The court found that the participants in a fight had been separated and moved apart. The accused then took a knife from a car, returned and inflicted wounds on the other person. Despite the injuries the accused had previously sustained to the face, the court refused to reclassify the conduct under Article 122 of the Criminal Code because the attack had already ended when the knife was used.
Different circumstances were established in Supreme Court case No. 150აპ-25 of 16 July 2025. After causing an injury with a bottle, the attacker continued pursuing the defender while threatening to kill them, so the danger still existed when force was used. The reclassification of the conduct from attempted murder to an offence under Article 122 of the Criminal Code remained in force. The convicted person was released from criminal liability and punishment under an amnesty. This did not amount to an acquittal or a finding that the conduct constituted lawful defence.
The Severity of Injuries and the Importance of Evidence
The severity of injuries has evidential significance, but the medical outcome alone cannot determine the legal classification of the conduct. An expert examination establishes the severity of the injuries, how they were inflicted, and other matters requiring specialist knowledge. The court assesses the existence of necessary defence and any possible excess of its limits in light of all the material circumstances of the case. The number of blows and the location of injuries must also be considered in the context of how the confrontation developed, to establish whether each act was connected to repelling the danger that existed at that moment.
In such cases, the defence position must be based on reconstructing the complete sequence of events. Video footage may establish who initiated the violence, how it continued, and when the danger ceased. Medical records are also important in documenting the defender's own injuries. Witness testimony, traces found at the scene, and expert reports help establish the parties' positions and actions. Examining the full relevant sequence of video footage is particularly important, because a clip showing only the infliction of injury may not reveal the start of the attack or its continuation.
Working with evidence does not place an obligation on the accused to prove their innocence. Under Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, the burden of proving the accusation rests with the prosecution, and unresolved doubts must be decided in favour of the accused. Under Article 82 of the same Code, a conviction must be based on a body of consistent evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This requirement also applies to convictions for exceeding the limits of necessary defence.
What Liability Is Provided For?
Killing in excess of the limits of necessary defence is punishable under Article 113 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. The penalties are corrective labour for up to two years, house arrest for six months to two years, or imprisonment for one to three years. For causing serious or less serious harm to health in excess of the limits of necessary defence, Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Georgia provides for a fine, corrective labour for up to six months, house arrest for six months to two years, or imprisonment for up to one year. A conviction under these articles requires every element of the relevant offence to be established.
The Lawyer's Role in Formulating the Defence Position
The defence position must also be based on these legal distinctions. If the person's actions fully met the conditions for necessary defence, the defence seeks recognition that the conduct was lawful. If there were grounds for defence, but the force used was manifestly disproportionate to the nature and danger of the attack, classification under the appropriate special provision must be considered. In both situations, the lawyer's arguments must be grounded in the danger that existed at the time, the defender's purpose, and the evidence supporting each conclusion. The assessment of these circumstances determines whether the person acted lawfully, exceeded the limits of necessary defence, or engaged in conduct requiring a different legal assessment.
Author: Lawyer Avtandil Giorgadze
Legal Sources
- Criminal Code of Georgia — Articles 28, 113 and 122;
- Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia — Articles 5 and 82;
- Supreme Court of Georgia Ruling No. 150აპ-25 of 16 July 2025, including the interpretation from Ruling No. 770აპ-19 cited in paragraph 15.2;
- Supreme Court of Georgia Ruling No. 575აპ-25 of 24 November 2025.