You always hope it won’t happen to you, but what would you do if you confronted burglars in your home, how far would you go to defend yourself, your loved ones and your property? Tony Martin set the agenda 
on this, but it is still far from resolved. At the moment you can use “reasonable 
force”, but this has resulted in unfair prosecutions for acting in self-defence.
Tory rising star Shailesh Vara believes the law should be changed so only those deemed to have used “grossly disproportionate force” are prosecuted. Previous similar attempts do not appear to have been successful.
He is seeking to introduce a Private Members’ Bill in Parliament and says:
“It is important to have proper and clear law in the area of householders dealing with intruders. The law here is completely outdated and in need of reform.
“I believe that most people will agree that individuals should have the right to defend their home and family from intruders, and that this may, on occasions, require the use of force. The present wording of being allowed to use ‘reasonable force’ has resulted in some people being prosecuted when all they have done is to act in self-defence. By changing the law, to a test of a person using ‘grossly disproportionate force,’ seems much more appropriate, as well as making the law clearer for the police and Crown Prosecution Service to interpret.
“My Bill has cross party support and I hope that there will be a reasoned and sensible debate on the subject. I hope this long overdue reform is passed into law.�
It all comes down to how a court of law defines “reasonable” and “grossly disproportionate force”, do you feel householders need more legal rights and clearer definitions on what action they can take to protect themselves and their homes from intruders? If Shailesh has cross party support, maybe he will swing it this time. It must be a truly terrifying experience to confront a burglar, and householders want more rights, a local newspaper poll showed that nine out of 10 voters were in support, as well as these radio listeners. Are you in support of Shailesh’s proposed amendment too?
Actully I think the law here is OK as it stands. Why would we want to change ‘reasonable force…would we replace it with ‘disproportionate force’?
Tony Martin is a freak case and he shot one of the burglars in the back as he tried ot escape. A counter example to Tony Martin is Kenneth Noye. He killed a policemen who was spying on him on his property and got away with it under the current law.
I am all for being able to defend oneself and ones property but the right to kill anyone who is on the property is dangerous.
Too often we are reaching for new laws and changes to laws when what is needed is a review of past precedent’s and application of our current laws.
Mornign Elle,
I have to say that I total agree with Shailesh Vara. As I began to read your blog the first thing that came to mind is what is the difference between grossly disproportionate and reasonable?
It’s a terryfying thought that someone not only can break into your home, steal your hard earned postions, violate your personal space and safe environment, but to add insult to injury, have to endure the potential physical danger and feel helpless in defending yourself for fear of prosecution.
I still feel for Tony Martin. Didn’t the burglar try and sue him for injuries sustained whilst in the act of theft? What a horrible situation.
I don’t understand how a victim becomes a criminal.
Cityunslicker, I agree the right to kill someone on your property is a dangerous thing.
However, I don’t think that is what is being proposed. The legal ability to defend yourself whilst in physical danger and threat from an unknown person entering your home is.
This business of being sued by the perpetrator is total nonsense as well. I do think we need reform but not bull at a gate reform.
I do see your point. A good one to make.
The main problem here is that there will allways be those that side with the criminal.
Regardless of how much force you might use, the system is balanced in faviour of the criminal not the victim of crime,
If the legislation is changed to allow us to defend our homes, then it must be black and white. Leaving no room for some clever lawyer to find a way to put the blame back onto the victim.
Break the legistlation down into what can be done and what is considered “over the top”
it would allow householders to know exactly what they can do to protect themselves, their homes and their families. At the same time the burglar would know exactly what he was in for if he is caught in the act. Knowing that he would legaly get a good kicking if caught and then chargedby the police with no chance of compensation would probably deter some burglars.
This article is very instructive on the common law approach to self-defence and how the politicians screwed things up with the 1967 Criminal Law Act.
I tend to agree with Cityslicker on this one. From the discussions I have heard, “reasonable force” can be quite drastic so long as you are genuinely defending yourself. But you are not supposed to inflict violence for revenge or punishment, for example. So if the intruder is retreating, or you have overpowered him (her), then oyu must stop.
However, that is all well and good in theory, I wonder how I would react in the heat of the moment? I think I would go for disabling (shooting in the foot) rather than for the kill.
I’ve never, thank goodness, had to confront a burglar in my home, but on 23rd December 1993 I saw 2 masked men climbing over the garden fence! [I remember the date because I was Sicily-bound the next day.] It was midnight and I was just letting the dog out into the garden for his last - er - ablutions of the night. God, I was scared! The dog went crazy and the men just ran - back in the direction they had come from. I yanked the dog back inside, called the police and I must say that what seemed like half of South Wales Constabulary were there in minutes. They didn’t think the men would come back - the dog I had then could be quite scary to strangers - but I was still trembling and I just sat there all night clutching my plane tickets and thinking “They’re not going to get those if they return!” I was trembly and jumpy for weeks afterwards.
I agree with Cityunslicker and also with Jim that the heat of the moment is a very different matter from theory. Tony Martin has become a supporter of the extreme right, I understand, presumably in the belief that such a group would accord him more rights to defend his property. I do think that people need a clearer explanation of what they can and cannot do to defend their homes, yes.
Shailesh is probably concerned about householders who have been prosecuted in these circumstances:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/16/nfight16.xml
I am with cityunslicker on this one.
I think the law is alright as it stands. It is how it is interpreted, and the failure of the police to police where the real problems are. Tony Martin should not have been put in the position where he felt he had no option but to take the law into his own hands. This was a case where he was vulnerable and the police failed in their duty to protect him. He should have been issued with a panic alarm which automatically alerts the police at the press of a button. I still feel that his was a case of murder, even allowing for a high degree of provocation, and that the judge could have given a low tariff to reflect this fact.
In the case of Kenneth Noye, the police officer was corrupt and it was a case of one criminal killing another.
I used to be a burglar, but when my own flat was burgled I felt devastated and from that point on I would not burgle domestic premises but confined myself to industrial ones.
The best defences are to take security precautions. A good guard dog, CCTV cameras, and a good alarm system. As a back up, people are always doing DIY about the house, therefore it is perfectly reasonable that there would be certain tools in strategic places about the house.
I found a house in a cul-de-sac within a No Through Road to Traffic, which appealed to me on security grounds. I felt that I could defend it and myself there. I call it “Myhaven”. I told the landlord that if I left there it would be feet first in a coffin. There were a few problems in the neighbourhood, windows with Union Jacks in them, and some people claiming that they had got rid of all the refugees and asylum seekers off the street. I made it plain that they would not get rid of me and that I was here to stay.
I came under attack. The police did not police. In effect, it was a police no-go area. The neighbours from hell gained strength from the fact that the police did not police. “Death Wish” springs to mind. Being on Life Licence it means that the Parole Board has tied my hands to the extent that whatever action I take, it would decide that I took the wrong action and should have relied on the police. “Catch 22″ springs to mind. In any event, there was a showdown. It was “High Noon”.
The CCTV footage captured the youth wielding and swirling the samurai sword above his head. My dog held his ground between us. The police initially did not want to respond. I accused them of having a police no-go area. They denied this. I said they can view the 24/7 CCTV footage and show me where they actually patrolled the streets. I said that if they did not respond, I would do a Tony Martin. It galvanised them into action and a armed response vehicle turned up and the youth was arrested. The neighbours from hell got ASBOs and were evicted from their house. It is a quite neighbourhood now. No hoodies hanging around disturbing the peace and quiet. Neighbours who had suffered in silence for so long, gave me respect for reclaiming the street for them. I believe everyone’s home should be their haven, and protected to the hilt.
So if the intruder is retreating, or you have overpowered him (her), then you must stop.
Fine, but lets say that I, a moderately built person, finds a 6 foot, 200lb man in my kitchen one night. I hit him with a chair / piece of wood and he falls down. Now do I hit him a few times more. He is stronger than me and if he gets up again, I cannot restrain him.
When do I stop? If he pleads for mercy, is it a ploy? We know he is dishonest, he’s a thief.
The problem is that we victims are at a massive disadvantage. Most of us don’t know how to fight, we lack the necessary aggression, whilst criminals are the complete opposite.
Therefore, I suggest that if we find ourselves in that unfortunate position, battering said thief unconscious and damn the consequences, should be our right.
I think you should be able to do anything to defend your property including lethal force. If criminals know that they could be killed or seriously injured while they are committing a crime most would never do it.
The rights of burglars always seem to take precedence over those of the victim.
If I caught anybody else in my house they would now have an “unfortunate” accident as they ran downstairs. The police are powerless, in fact I once had cause to telephone the pinch at 3:30a.m. and was given the line “What d’you expect us to do about it, the’ll be gone by the time we get there”
And thats the absolute truth, so help me God.