Self-Defence Laws in Western Australia: The Section 248 Test Explained

Western Australia's self-defence test, in force since 2008 under Criminal Code (WA) section 248, asks whether the person believed the act was necessary to defend themselves or another, whether it was a reasonable response in the circumstances as they believed them to be, and whether there were reasonable grounds for those beliefs, alongside a separate, real home invasion provision, section 244, that can authorise lethal force in a way the general test does not.

This page covers Western Australia only. For how section 248's combined belief-and-reasonableness test compares with the rest of the country, see self-defence laws in Australia. It is part of our broader guide to everyday law in Australia.

Section 248: The Test for Self-Defence

Criminal Code (WA) section 248 has governed self-defence since it was substituted into the Code by the Criminal Law Amendment (Homicide) Act 2008, which commenced 1 August 2008 and replaced the old sections 249 and 250.

A harmful act, broadly, any act that is an element of an offence against the person, is done in lawful self-defence if three things are true: the person believed the act was necessary to defend themselves or another person from a harmful act, including one that is not imminent; the act was a reasonable response in the circumstances as the person believed them to be; and there were reasonable grounds for those beliefs. All three elements have to be met. The defence is not available where the harmful act being defended against was itself lawful.

Where the response was not reasonable but everything else about section 248 would otherwise apply, section 248(3) does not simply remove the defence. It reduces what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter, an excessive-self-defence outcome similar in effect to New South Wales' section 421, though the two provisions are worded differently and neither state's wording should be assumed to apply in the other.

Retreat and Onus: What the Statute Says

Section 248's text contains no retreat requirement. If anything, the section points the other way: section 248(4)(a) expressly extends the defence to a harmful act that 'is not imminent,' which sits awkwardly next to an unwritten rule that a person must retreat before using force.

The Code also has no self-defence-specific onus provision for section 248. By comparison, the Code's criminal-defamation lawful-excuse provision does state an explicit onus rule elsewhere in the same statute, and that contrast suggests the omission for section 248 is not an oversight, but neither a WA-specific statutory statement nor a Western Australian judicial source confirming the case-law position on onus could be reached in the research behind this page. Both retreat and onus are stated here only as what the Code's text does, or does not, say; they should not be read as a confirmed common-law position specific to Western Australia.

Section 244: Home Invasion

Section 244 is headed 'Home invasion, use of force to prevent etc.' in the Code itself, and the Act that inserted it in 2000 is formally titled the Criminal Code Amendment (Home Invasion) Act 2000. It is a real, separately named provision, not an informal label applied to section 248.

It lets an occupant in peaceable possession of a dwelling use force they believe, on reasonable grounds, is necessary to prevent a home invader from wrongfully entering, to make them leave, to defend against violence they use or threaten, or to prevent or stop them committing an offence. A person is a home invader if the occupant reasonably believes they intend to commit, are committing, or have committed an offence in the dwelling.

Section 244 is the one provision in this group that can authorise lethal force, but it is gated: force intended or likely to cause death is not lawful under section 244 unless the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, that violence is being used, is likely to be used, or is threatened against a person by the home invader. A home invader who has not threatened violence to a person, someone who has only entered to steal property, does not by that fact alone expose themselves to lawful lethal force under this section.

Property and Other Premises: Sections 251 to 256 and Section 260

Outside the home-invasion scenario, Western Australia has a separate family of provisions for property. Sections 251 through 253 cover movable property, section 254 covers 'place,' a broader category than dwelling that reaches general non-dwelling trespass, and sections 255 and 256 cover claim-of-right variants. All of them are capped well below section 244's ceiling: the force they authorise must not be intended, or likely, to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and the claim-of-right provisions are capped even lower, at no bodily harm at all. Section 260 sits underneath all of them as a general backstop: force beyond what any specific section justifies is unlawful.

Family Violence

Western Australia has no provision analogous to Victoria's section 322M or Queensland's section 304B. Searching the Code's full text turns up only section 300, persistent family violence, which is an offence, not a defence, and references to the Family Violence Legislation Reform Act 2020. A family-violence self-defence claim in Western Australia runs through the ordinary section 248 test rather than a dedicated provision; section 248(4)(a)'s 'not imminent' language is a general feature of the test that could, in principle, accommodate a pattern of cumulative or non-imminent threats, but it was not written for family violence specifically and no source confirms it has been applied that way. Family violence protection orders remain a separate, civil track; see AVO and family violence order laws in Australia and, for the parenting side, family violence and parenting orders in Australia.

Intoxication

Section 28, Western Australia's general intoxication provision, is drafted around section 27, insanity, and offences requiring a specific intent. It does not cross-reference section 248 or its 'circumstances as the person believes them to be' language. There is no express statutory rule on whether a belief formed only because of voluntary intoxication can satisfy section 248(4)(a) or (b). The most that can be said from the structure of the Code is that section 248(4)(c)'s separate, objective reasonable-grounds requirement would likely defeat a belief that exists only because of voluntary intoxication, but that is an inference from how the section is built, not a stated rule or a case holding, and this page does not present it as settled.

Weapons and Self-Defence

Carrying an item because it might be useful for self-defence is not, on its own, a lawful excuse to possess it almost everywhere in Australia, and Western Australia's own self-defence test in section 248 is about whether using force was lawful, not about whether carrying a weapon to potentially use was. Western Australia is the one exception on the weapons side: since a 2024 reform, capsicum spray is lawful here for civilian self-defence in a way it is not in the rest of the country. That is weapons-possession law under a different Act, not part of the section 248 test itself. See self-defence weapons in Australia for what is and is not legal to carry.

After You Have Used Force

Successfully raising section 248 or section 244 is a legal outcome a court decides, not something a person can be certain of in the moment. What happens immediately afterwards, arrest, police questioning, the right to silence, and whether Western Australian police must let a person attempt to contact a lawyer, is covered separately in Miranda rights in Australia. This page describes the tests that can make force lawful; it is not advice on what to do or say if force has already been used.