The case of South Auckland liquor store owner Virender Singh 10 days ago raises some interesting aspects of law.
Justice Minister Simon Power wishes to investigate our laws on self-defence after charges against Mr Singh were dismissed at the early depositions stage.
In our legal system, if you are charged with an offence which could attract a maximum penalty greater than three months' imprisonment, then you have the right to elect to be tried by a jury.
That election triggers a pre-jury trial hearing known as the depositions.
It requires the police to produce sufficient evidence before a preliminary court, usually presided over by two JPs, to establish a case to answer.
The test to apply is usually expressed in the following question - "Could a jury, properly directed on the law, convict on the evidence?".
If not, the case is thrown out at that early stage.
The system allows for extensive pre-trial defence examination of the evidence in a formal setting.
The debate rages as to whether this preliminary hearing is a time and money waster, particularly for relatively minor offending, or whether it is an essential foundation stone which allows for an initial examination which might determine, as in Mr Singh's case, that the prosecution evidence was so flawed and contradictory that an accused should not be put on trial before a jury.
Mr Power has asked for advice on how section 48 of the Crimes Act applies to the discretion of police to press charges.
I think he is posturing.
The principles and practices in this area are quite clear.
The police cannot be put in a position of being given any wider discretion.
They would not want it.
It would impose on them an obligation to become a "behind closed doors" judge and jury.
Their duty is to investigate and, if the evidence appears to establish a case to answer, then it is placed before a court for open assessment and determination.
In this case, the lying little so-and-so's so lacked credibility when they came to give their evidence at the depositions that no court could have allowed the matter to proceed to a full jury trial.
So a finding of "no case to answer" was made.
Mr Singh faced two charges of injuring with intent following a nasty incident in Otara last September.
He said he acted in self-defence when a group of teenagers attempted to rob his store.
During Singh's police interview, he said he had seen a boy, who was quite drunk, trying to get inside his shop.
"I told him he couldn't come into the shop because he was underage and drunk. He started swearing at me.
"That's when I saw another three guys in the corner. They jumped on me outside the shop. I tried to defend myself and they started punching me.
"One of the boys had a knife and he stabbed me in my leg. I felt my pants were wet, and I saw bleeding and I had a hole in my pants. Then somebody tried to stab my nephew in the chest with a knife.
"I got a hockey stick from inside the shop and I followed him. He held the knife at me. I hit him with the hockey stick on the legs and arms five or six times. Two of the other boys went to pick up a piece of wood. The guys came back again and hit my friend's wife with a piece of wood from the fence."
So Mr Singh was faced with a horrible situation.
I accept there is some doubt as to the intent and innocence of some young people present but there is no doubt that Mr Singh was confronted with a thoroughly unpleasant rat pack and he was stabbed with a knife.
He picked up a hockey stick and with a flourish of "hockey 1, hockey 2, hockey 3" he dispatched two or three of them, albeit temporarily, to the Promised Land. No-one was killed.
Mr Singh has a stab wound.
I say anyone who pulls a knife and stabs deserves a bung in the earhole with a hockey stick!
What does the law say?
Some say it is complicated.
I say it is quite simple.
There are five short sections in our Crimes Act 1961.
First up, section 48 states that "Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use".
This is pretty straightforward, if inelegantly expressed, and the courts have developed a set of sensible rules and will examine whether there were alternative and non physical options open such as retreat and calling the police.
But the law does not require a person defending themselves to weigh to a nicety the precise degree of force necessary.
"What is reasonable?" is the simple test.
Then section 52 allows you to use reasonable force to resist the taking of any property, or to take it back, provided you do not "strike or do bodily harm to the taker".
The all important qualifier in this situation is that you cannot take the extra step of striking someone.
So you have a much lesser right to use force in protecting property as distinct from protecting yourself or another.
Next up is section 55 which allows you to use such force as is necessary to prevent the forcible breaking and entering of your dwelling house.
That is a very wide permit.
It recognises the sanctity of your own home.
Movie buffs will imagine the possibilities of defences from such film classics as Straw Dogs and Home Alone.
But an important qualifier applies to buildings other than your home.
Section 56 allows you to use reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing on your land or buildings and to remove them provided you do not strike that person.
Again, you can see the "no strike" qualifier.
Finally, there is the further sensible qualification in section 62.
"Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."
So reasonable force and "such force as is necessary" are permitted to defend yourself or another or your dwelling house but much less force is the rule if you are only defending chattels or other buildings.
The law means you cannot strike someone to stop them stealing your pet or a family heirloom or your car.
In my view, that is a bit precious . . . but it is the law!
Michael Guest is a former lawyer and District and Family Court Judge