IntroductionWhether the accused has a duty to withdraw before resorting to force in self-defense is a debatable subject in criminal law. In some jurisdictions, such a duty exists and the onus is on the defense to demonstrate that its conduct was reasonable or necessary. However, in other countries, courts are more reluctant to impose, or even deny, such a requirement. This essay will first examine the withdrawal doctrine in Hong Kong and then compare it with other jurisdictions, including the United States and Scotland. Finally, it will be argued that the Scottish system is better from a political perspective because the right to life is a fundamental right possessed by all human beings and should be prioritized whenever there is a reasonable possibility. English law and Hong Kong law In R v. Julien, the Court of Appeal held that self-defense would fail only if the defendant failed to take a reasonable opportunity to escape the dangerous situation. As to whether the accused must first demonstrate his unwillingness to fight, Widgery LJ held, "what is necessary is for him to demonstrate by his actions that he does not want to fight". However, the decision in the Julien case has since been changed. In R v McInnes it was held that failure to back down is only one element that the court must consider in terms of the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct. Then, in the leading case, R v Bird, the English Court of Appeal implicitly disapproved of the Julien rule, holding that it was not necessary to demonstrate an unwillingness to fight. The court observed: “If it is proven that [D] attacked, retaliated or took revenge, then he was not truly acting in self-defense. Evidence that the defense...... middle of paper ......1958] 100 CLR 448, 463.[2007] EWHC 3169 (Administrator).[1992] 1 HKCLR 255. ibid 258,259. The Model Penal Code 1981. Fiona Leverick, Killing in Self-Defense, (1st ed., OUP 2006) 75. ibid 72.1999 SLT 1333. ibid 1336. ibid 1337. ibid. AJ Ashworth, “Self-defense and the right to life” (1975) 34 CLJ 290.P. Luevonda Ross, “The Transmogrification of Self-Defense by the Inspired Bylaws of the National Rifle Association: From the Doctrine of Retirement to the Right to Stand Your Ground” (2007) 35 SUL Rev.1, 46. John Lott, No More Guns , less crime" (3rd ed., University of Chicago Press 2010). Chandler B. McClellan and Erdal Tekin, 'Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries' (2012) NBER Working Paper 18187. Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, 'Shooting Down the “More Guns, Less Crime” Hypothesis (2003) Stanford Law Review 1193. Leverick (n13) 82-84.