A referendum we actually want

Courtesy of the Moose, here's a poll from the Lancashire Telegraph:



You can vote here (link no longer active).

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am probably the least violent person on the planet. I rarely lose my temper, and when I do my anger is far more likely to be directed against myself than anyone else. But I cannot see why people should not be able to defend their own property in any way they see fit. Once you have broken into my house, you have crossed a line. You have already broken a law, and if you do that, you lose the right to claim the law in your favour when things go wrong for you. You either obey the law, or you don't. Cross over into my territory uninvited, and the laws are mine.

I think the current laws on defence of property have it about right, actually. You are allowed to use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself and your property. If you wake up to find an intruder in your bedroom, the law accepts that you will be very frightened and may not act with the degree of proportion you may exercise in the cold light of day. The law would not allow you to blast a shotgun at someone taking a pee inside your garden gate at closing time, and rightly too. But if you did the same to someone who was on your upstairs landing and heading towards your children's bedroom, the law would look much more leniently on your actions. What I think goes wrong is in the way these laws are interpreted by the Police and the Courts. Often, we have seen law-abiding householders arrested and put through the mill simply for defending what is their own. It's not right, but that's a matter of the interpretation of the law, not the law itself. In every case where a householder was convicted that I have read about, there has been a significant element of revenge and punishment, or lack of due care, in the retribution exacted by the householder. Tony Martin, for example, shot a young man in the dark without knowing who he was or why he was there. Munir Hussain followed the intruder down the street and with the help of a number of relatives subjected him to a ferocious attack which left him brain-damaged. You might feel very sympathetic to those convicted, and say the intruders got what was coming to them, but both cases are difficult and complex. It is always foolish to make cast-iron judgements from cases like these. These are, if you like, on the edge of what is reasonable and what is not, and no-one will ever agree on the rights and wrongs. But, put simply, if you are in fear of your life or your property, the law allows you to take reasonable steps (and even, in extreme cases, unreasonable ones) to defend yourself and your stuff.

The best advice I have had on the subject came from a serving Police officer:

Always sleep with something big and useful under the bed. Don't ever keep a baseball bat for things like this. Unless you are a baseball star, it will be easy for a slimy lawyer to argue premeditation. Non-players only keep baseball bats for one thing. Make it a torch (a "big, fuck-off 5-cell Maglite" was his choice of words). Hold it by the bulb end in your cupped hand, and have the length resting on your shoulder with a finger on the button. When you see the intruder, snap the light on, blind him, and then bring the blunt end down on his head with all your force. No court in the land would convict you for taking a torch to investigate a strange noise in the night.

I have the 5-cell Maglite, and I would use it exactly as recommended. I am not a violent person, but if you do violence to me or the people or things I care about, I will use maximum force against you. As I am even-tempered and not used to being angry, I will probably not stop until you were no longer moving and no further threat to me. I would regret it afterwards but, as the saying goes, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried out by six.

This right of attack on intruders can't be absolute. I have heard of cases from the US where someone has knocked on the door of a house to ask to use the phone after a car breakdown and been shot on sight. That's not right. But neither is rolling over and according 'rights' to people who by their deliberate actions have demonstrated that they don't care a scrap for yours.

The right to live without harm from others, and the right to keep the things you have worked hard for, are probably the most basic rights we have. We need to make this completely clear to those who govern, who enforce and who judge.




Thanks, Bucko.

Self-defence

This a little behind the curve, but ... I have been following the case of Munir Hussain with interest. This, you may recall, was the man who was held hostage, along with his wife and family, in his own home by burglars. He managed to escape, and with his brother chased the fleeing burglars. When they caught up with them, they gave one a good hiding with a cricket bat, giving the burglar permanent brain injury as a result. Mr Hussain was given a 30-month prison sentence, and there was an outcry similar to that around the Tony Martin case of 1999. The brother, who we may assume carried out the majority of the attack, was sentenced to 39 months.

This week, the case went to appeal, and Mr Justice Judge (isn't that good? almost as good as Cocklecarrot) reduced his sentence to 12 months, suspended for two years: effectively, freed on appeal. Great, but disturbing.

The great bit first. Mr Hussain was imprisoned in his own home by a career criminal. His wife and children had been tied up, and he must have had grave concerns about what would happen to them if the burglars decided to see what they could get away with. Fortunately, he escaped, contacted his brother, and chased the burglars, who by this time had given up and run away. They caught one of them and gave him a sound pasting. Sounds good - the law-abiding man gets his revenge, and there is one fewer criminal to terrorise some other innocent family.

The disturbing bit is that the attack was not committed on Mr Hussain's property. The burglars were chased up the street and attacked far from Mr Hussain's home. That suggests a punishment beating rather than self-defence while in fear of one's life. Secondly, a number or weapons, including a golf club and a cricket bat, were used in the attack, where there is no suggestion that the burglars were armed in any way. Thirdly, the burglar sustained serious head injuries, sufficient to prevent him appearing at the trial, although not enough to render him incapable of further criminal acts, it would appear. The law allows the householder to use reasonable force to defend his home and family from intruders, but in this case there is a big question mark over how far Mr Hussain's actions stand the test of reasonableness or proportionality.

This is not a clear-cut case, no matter how the Daily Mail spins it.

For myself, I am a believer in the rule of law. If a householder has to resort to violence to defend himself or apprehend a criminal intent on stealing his property, then as long as the force used is reasonable, I have no problem with it. I have a feeling that Mr Hussain went beyond that simple definition when he chased the burglar down the street and attacked him. But there are other ways of looking at it. The burglar set out with the intention of breaking the law. Mr Hussain had been to the mosque, and no thought of criminality was in his mind, until he found the intruder in his house. The mens rea suggests that the burglar was intent on criminality, whereas Mr Hussain was innocent of any such intention until provoked.

I would tend to side with Mr Hussain for this reason: the law is there for everyone, and its function is to protect everyone. If I deliberately break the law, it is hardly consistent for me to then claim that the people I was offending against should adhere to the laws of the land in their acts of defence. Once you enter someone else's property with criminal intent, as far as I am concerned you have signed away your rights as a citizen. If you get a good hiding for your trouble, well - you shouldn't have been in someone else's house, should you? I would go further: if you rig up trip wires linked to a shotgun, or you electrify certain metal objects to harm intruders, well why shouldn't you? Unless someone is deliberately breaking the law, these measures cannot harm them. And if you break the law, frankly, it's your lookout.

I think Mr Judge Justice, or whatever he is called, has got it about right. Mr Hussain did go too far, but he was substantially justified in what he did. A conviction, but with no penalty, is about right.