It is certainly misleading to imply that he can determine the law: the courts do that. All he can do is to express his understanding of the court decisions - in which respect his view is no more necessarily correct than that of any other competent barrister.

It is also misleading by omission to fail to clarify that the right to use reasonable force against a bigger or stronger opponent is only the right to be beaten to a pulp.

Thus the right to defend one's own property becomes, in the end, only a right for the strong.

The proper purpose of the law is not to defend the strong against the weak.