Thursday, June 30, 2011
The final cut
Just when you thought that the cuts agenda could not get any worse the Justice Secretary announces that he is going to legislate to allow householders to stab burglars with a knife:
David Cameron has promised that the new Justice Bill would "put beyond doubt that home owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted".
Yesterday, Mr Clarke spelt out the sort of action that would be permitted under the new regime. He made clear that it would remain illegal to pursue intruders to attack them or to shoot them as they fled.
The Justice Secretary said: "If an old lady finds she has got an 18 year-old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him, she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."
He added: "There is no doubt that you or I or anybody else is entitled to use reasonable force to defend ourselves and to protect ourselves or our homes or both. That has to be the law and we are going to make that absolutely clear. We are clarifying the law.
"We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he is in the house and you have a perfect defence if you do so.'' Mr Clarke accepted that the defence of reasonable force already existed, but said: "Given that doubts are expressed, we are going to clarify that. It is quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes.
"What they are not entitled to do is go running down the road chasing them or shooting them in the back when they are running away or to get their friends together and go and beat them up.
"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force. Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes these steps. It will be much clearer when we have set it out in this act of Parliament.''
Of course the key to this reform is how it is framed. I know I am in danger of mixing my metaphors but there is potential here to open a whole new can of worms. Once the Government has extended the right of self-defence to cover property then prosecutions could become impossible, even if an attack on a burglar takes place whilst in 'hot pursuit'. I just hope that they have thought this through.
David Cameron has promised that the new Justice Bill would "put beyond doubt that home owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves or their properties will not be prosecuted".
Yesterday, Mr Clarke spelt out the sort of action that would be permitted under the new regime. He made clear that it would remain illegal to pursue intruders to attack them or to shoot them as they fled.
The Justice Secretary said: "If an old lady finds she has got an 18 year-old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him, she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."
He added: "There is no doubt that you or I or anybody else is entitled to use reasonable force to defend ourselves and to protect ourselves or our homes or both. That has to be the law and we are going to make that absolutely clear. We are clarifying the law.
"We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he is in the house and you have a perfect defence if you do so.'' Mr Clarke accepted that the defence of reasonable force already existed, but said: "Given that doubts are expressed, we are going to clarify that. It is quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes.
"What they are not entitled to do is go running down the road chasing them or shooting them in the back when they are running away or to get their friends together and go and beat them up.
"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force. Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes these steps. It will be much clearer when we have set it out in this act of Parliament.''
Of course the key to this reform is how it is framed. I know I am in danger of mixing my metaphors but there is potential here to open a whole new can of worms. Once the Government has extended the right of self-defence to cover property then prosecutions could become impossible, even if an attack on a burglar takes place whilst in 'hot pursuit'. I just hope that they have thought this through.
Comments:
<< Home
"What they are not entitled to do is go running down the road chasing them or shooting them in the back when they are running away or to get their friends together and go and beat them up."
So no help to Tony Martin (who shot his burglar in the back, with an unlicensed and illegal firearm and then didn't report what had happened).
"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force."
Well that's Ok then! :-)
"It will be much clearer when we have set it out in this act of Parliament."
Hang on - I thought it was already clear?
So no help to Tony Martin (who shot his burglar in the back, with an unlicensed and illegal firearm and then didn't report what had happened).
"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force."
Well that's Ok then! :-)
"It will be much clearer when we have set it out in this act of Parliament."
Hang on - I thought it was already clear?
"It" should not be about protecting property but life. Any householder who attacks a burglar to protect him/herself and/or members of his/her family - this should be legal. But hurting someone merely to protect property should remain illegal. Thus, if a house owner sets up a shot-gun to fire on a prospective intruder in an empty house (empty of humans) this should remain illegal. I recall several cases in the USA where a parent killed someone on their property they believed posed a threat to their family. In one case a Scot (from Edinburgh area if memory serves) knocked on the back-door of someone's house - and was shot through the door and the shooter was not prosecuted because he had a reasonable belief his family was in danger (the Scot was hammering the door shouting for help because he believed his life was in danger (he was drunk) and was trying to escape people he believed wanted to harm him). Chris Wood
# posted by 
: 10:33 PM
: 10:33 PM
My principal concern is the possibility that, faced with the increased prospect of being resisted by force, more burglars will arm themselves.
An allied point has been made by a correspondent in today's "Daily Post": if the burglar took the knife off the old lady and stabbed her, could he claim that he had been acting in self-defence?
An allied point has been made by a correspondent in today's "Daily Post": if the burglar took the knife off the old lady and stabbed her, could he claim that he had been acting in self-defence?
# posted by : 8:17 AM
: 8:17 AM
Wyn> could claim it - but would likely 'not wash' with the jury. A burglar in a house occupied by an old lady poses a threat to the old lady in her own home; the old lady does not pose a reasonable threat to the burglar. In the USA killing an old lady in her own home during a burglary is likely to mean 'double deserts', i.e. felony murder and that often comes with the death penalty. In Texas home burglaries during night time when houses are generally occupied presents serious risks to the burglar as they can be shot dead on the premises and the occupier who shoots a burglar dead while in fear of his/her life will likely not face prosecution, and if the burglar is carrying a knife or gun this will count against them in a court of law. For some strange reason the English courts have been reluctant to come down on the side of the house occupier and so we have all this confusion (in England and Wales). Not sure about Scotland even though I lived there some 3 years.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 11:36 AM
: 11:36 AM<< Home
