further damages if their claim for battery succeeded). The police appealed the decision to the House of Lords, then the United Kingdom's court of last resort. The Law Lords considered two main issues, both in relation to the battery claim. The first was the standard for a self-defence claim in a civil case and whether, in a case of a mistaken belief that the defendant was under attack, that belief must be both honest and reasonable, and the second was whether it would be an abuse of process to allow the battery claim to proceed given the police's offer to pay all the damages sought. On the first, the lords unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal's finding that both criteria must be met for a defence of self-defence to succeed in a tort action. Lord Scott noted that "it is fundamental to criminal law ... that, as a general rule, no-one should be punished for a crime he or she did not intend to commit or be punished for the consequences of an honest mistake" but that "the function of the civil law is ... to identify and protect the rights that every person is entitled to assert against, and require to be respected by, others" and that the law "must strike a balance between these conflicting rights". He concluded that "it is one thing to say that if A's mistaken belief was honestly held he should not be punished by the criminal law. It would be quite another to say that A's unreasonably held mistaken belief would be sufficient to justify the law in setting aside B's right not to be subjected to physical violence". The lords were split on the second point, the minority (Lord Carswell and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury) believing allowing the claim for battery to proceed would be an abuse of process given that no further damages were available. Lord Carswell, quoting Lord Justice Auld from the Court of Appeal, opined that "the civil courts exist to award compensation, not conduct public inquiries". Nonetheless, the majority (three to two) held that the battery claim was not an abuse of process and that it was for the litigants, not the judiciary, to decide which actions to pursue, noting that the success of the claim would not expose Sherwood to double jeopardy, and noting again the different purposes of tort and criminal law. The police and the