[Drizzt]

Homeowner spared jail for shooting 'burglar'
By Paul Stokes
(Filed: 20/05/2003)


A retired businessman who shot a drunken teenager he feared was about to burgle his rural home was spared prison by a judge yesterday.

Anthony Spray loaded a .22 air rifle he used to frighten rabbits off his vegetable patch before firing from the hip on his doorstep.

The pellet struck Paul Evans, then 19, in the face from a distance of four to five feet and surgeons had to remove his left eye.

Spray, 64, was convicted by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm but cleared of the more serious offence of committing the act with intent.

Passing sentence at Preston Crown Court, Judge Michael Byrne said the shooting was "a most unfortunate mistake".

He gave Spray a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered him to pay £3,000 compensation, prosecution costs of £1,650 and defence costs of up to £15,000.

There had been a spate of burglaries in his home village of Broughton-in-Furness, Cumbria, at the time of the incident in the early hours of the morning last November.

Spray and his wife Patricia, 66, had heard someone trying to force their front door when he decided to get the gun.

He went downstairs with his wife and saw the silhouette of a man outside with the door already forced open.

Spray said he tried to reason with the stranger but fired when the stranger "lunged" at him because he was extremely frightened for himself and his wife.

He then beat Evans three times with the rifle before being "horrified" to see the pellet had hit him in the eye.

The jury was told Evans had believed he was banging on the door of the pub where he was staying after attending his sister's birthday party.

He had urinated in a lane near the Sprays' L-shaped home and mistook it for the pub on his return. Evans, now 20, from St Ives, Cambs, has no memory of the shooting.

Judge Byrne said the combination of drink, Evans's unfamiliarity with the surroundings and the darkness "conspired to produce a most unfortunate mistake".

The judge recognised it was a feature of modern rural life that people might feel vulnerable, especially in the early hours of the morning when awoken by persistent banging on their door.

Judge Byrne told Spray: "This is a very tragic case, both for you and your victim. When you saw what you had done, you were horrified. I accept that when police arrived you were in a state of shock.

"You fired the air rifle at the intruder to deter him, though not aiming at any particular part of him. It was the use of the air rifle at short range, a distant of some four to five feet, that caused the severity of the injury.

"You genuinely believed you and your house were under attack by an intruder of some sort. I accept that at the time you fired the rifle you were terrified."

Judge Byrne said the jury's verdict at Lancaster Crown Court last month found Spray's conduct to be unacceptable, with no entitlement to use the rifle the way he did.

He said any offences involving a firearm merited imprisonment but there were "exceptional features" which allowed it to be suspended.

Spray, who was of previous good character, did not create the situation, did no know what was happening, was in fear and gave the victim a chance to retreat.

Outside the court, Spray said: "I am relieved to be going home with my wife and family and wish to put this nightmare behind us."

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/20/ngun20.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/20/ixhome.html

[TallPine]

Somehow the humour of this incident escapes me ...

[agricola]

The Torygraph once again presents half the story in order to present the image that it wants to show. The issue in this case, and the reason why the homeowner was found guilty of GBH, was not that the door had been smashed in by the "victim" - but rather because the homeowner had himself opened the door. The jury decided that it was that act (of confrontation and not restraint) that meant Spray was found guilty.

As the Torygraph story runs he wouldnt have been found guilty of anything; the only problem is that the story is clearly wrong.

EYE SHOOTING WAS 'FREAKISHLY UNLUCKY'

TEENAGE victim Paul Evans lost his eye in a "freakishly unlucky" incident at the hands of Broughton resident Anthony Spray, a crown court jury heard.

Retired farming consultant 63-year-old Anthony Spray, of High Cross, denies causing grievous bodily harm to Paul Evans, now 20, who had gone to his bungalow after becoming lost after a night out.

Weapons expert Giles Whittome told Lancaster Crown Court the chances of an SAS marksman deliberately aiming and striking the eye in the same circumstances would be zero.

"In 50 years of firing every weapon known to man I've never heard of anything so freakishly unlucky," Mr Whittome said.

Spray struck Mr Evans in the eye from a distance of five-feet with a .22 calibre air rifle usually fired from a distance of 50-feet.

Before firing the gun, he heard Mr Evans banging on his front door in the early hours of November 2.

He shouted for him to stop, which seemed to cause greater anxiety from outside, so Spray opened the door and shouted: "Get out".

Spray claimed Mr Evans then came at him so he shot him before using the butt to club him over the head.

Prosecution counsel Mr Francis Nance suggested, while summing up, that the main case for the prosecution was the issue of Spray unlocking the door.

Mr Nance said: "It's my case that this man commits a crime by opening the door."

Mr Nance suggested that Spray's intention had not been merely self-preservation but to cause harm.

Addressing the jury Mr Nance said: "You will no doubt have sympathy for the predicament in which he finds himself.

"You will have sympathy for Mr Evans also.

"He committed no crime and he lost an eye and you know that needn't have happened at all.

"A moment of restraint by Mr Spray would have left Mr Evans with nothing on his face other than egg."

The case continues.

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:EwiKldD9C1oJ:www.nwemail.co.uk/A2jmsf.HTM+%22anthony+spray%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[TallPine]

Mr Nance said: "It's my case that this man commits a crime by opening the door."

Please ... please ... stop!

Your dry British humour is cracking me up.

[hammer4nc]

Wonder why prosecutor ignored the homeowner's claim that the 'burglar' "came at him"? Let's see, on the one hand, the retired homeowner loses any protection under the law, merely by the act of opening the door? On the other hand, the 19yo alchoholic, who is already experiencing blackouts, & doesn't know where he is, enjoys a 3,000 pound payday for his irresponsible escapade?

The lad is not the only one who seems to have been blinded in this incident...

[P95Carry]

Usual deal there .... victim finishes up way worse off in law..... he'd probably still have been arrested for something even if the alco had beaten the livin sh*t outa him.:(

They'll ban pellet guns next.

[Standing Wolf]

He then beat Evans three times with the rifle before being "horrified" to see the pellet had hit him in the eye.

I have dust bunnies under the refrigerator that are worth more than the life of any @#$%^&! fool who breaks into my house—but then, I'm a citizen, not a subject.

[TexasVet]

Why does it not surprise me that a Brit (any Brit) fails to see the irony of someone being tried for "firearms" violations when he was holding a BB gun/air rifle at the time? The Oxford Dictionary really, really needs to update to Orwellian Newspeak.:fire:

[Mk VII]

not a 'firearms' violation; the charges here would be the same ones used in any case brought under the Offences Against The Person Act, 1861.

[Feanaro]

"Spared Jail"? He shouldn't have been considered for it. He did over-react but according to him the man moved towards him, after being told to stop.

[agricola]

MKVII is correct. Standing Wolf the man did not actually break into the house, he was banging on the door. Is it your right as a citizen to shoot anyone who does that?

The jury of his peers found that his judgement was at fault, not that he deliberately meant to wound (he was found not guilty of GBH with intent) but that he was reckless.

[Sergeant Bob]

Prosecution counsel Mr Francis Nance suggested, while summing up, that the main case for the prosecution was the issue of Spray unlocking the door.

Mr Nance said: "It's my case that this man commits a crime by opening the door."

What the (unprintable) is wrong with you people over there?

[TallPine]

"A moment of restraint by Mr Spray would have left Mr Evans with nothing on his face other than egg."

In a related story ... an 86 year old Manchester woman was convicted of assault for throwing eggs at several youths who walked into her kitchen and allegedly tried to steal her purse.

:D

[dustind]

If he yelled for the drunken 19 year old to stop, and the person didn't, and advanced into his house, thats cause for self defence. I would unloack and open my door if someone was pounding on it, maybe with a gun in hand, if i felt in danger. I wouldn't want a dangerous looney outside my home, because it is not intruder proof.

if thats what happened, it is convinient that the boy forgot everything, but i guess he was drunk.

If the door was already broken by the intruder, and the intruder came at the hom owner, he should have never been tried.

[Battler]

I think that Spray could have gotten off from any prosecution, though a few simple steps after the shooting.

The steps:

1. Picking up the drunk wounded guy, and reading his ID/licence
Driving the drunk wounded kid back to HIS house.

2. If anyone was there, rape them.

3. Load up his car with the TV, VCR and jewellery from the house.

4. Shoot HIMSELF on the side of the thigh with the air rifle.

5. Give the air rifle to the kid.

Now, Mr. Spray is a burglar and a rapist, and Paul Evans is a gunowner.

As a burglar and rapist, Mr. Spray will now not even face charges.

Paul Evans will get probation or a suspended sentence. As for his eye injury, the judge will say "serves you right for using a gun, bad, bad Paul Evans".

Also, Paul Evans will have to pay reparations to Mr. Spray for shooting a burglar in the leg.



I think this would work. From all of these "gun related" cases I've seen in the UK, having a gun means you are the guy who gets prosecuted, and being a criminal gives you immunity. Any thoughts?

[TheEgg]

Difficult to understand from this side of the pond. I get what agricola is saying, but the law (and atitudes) vary a great deal here. In Texas, I believe that in an identical case, even if the homeowner had killed the intruder, the case would not even go to trial.

We have had some cases where an intruder in the backyard of a home has been shot and killed, and the homeowner has not been convicted of anything. Here, your home is your castle and it does not make much difference about the motivation of the intruder -- evil intent, lost, drunk etc. The key factor seems to be that if the homeowner has a reasonable fear of death/bodily injury/lose of property, the onus is on the intruder, not the homeowner. This is especially true if the incident occurs at night.

It seems to me that the law/custom in UK now is so screwed up -- it seems to put an almost impossible burden on the homeowner. Agricola assures us that if the door had been broken down, instead of opened by the homeowner that it would have been a different story -- but what if the homeowner had a clear path of retreat when the door was broken down? Is the door the only issue? Or is the issue that as the homeowner/defender, you must be able to prove that using force was the only possible option, and that the force must be "proportional", whatever that means.

I am trying to understand the point of view of Agricola and others (some here in the good ol' USA), but so far I am having a rough go.

[Battler]

Come on, he's being crucified because he used A GUN.

Take the gun out of the equation, "reasonable self defense" comes back into it. In truth, British law contains mention of "self defense", it's just that such clauses go out the window when there's a gun involved.

(And they're calling an air rifle "a gun").

[Sergeant Bob]

In a related story ... an 86 year old Manchester woman was convicted of assault for throwing eggs at several youths who walked into her kitchen and allegedly tried to steal her purse.

A little Zanyism goin' on here?:D

[buzz_knox]

I think the point trying to be made by the subjects is that he opened the door to the person whom he thought was trying to break in, thus escalating the situation and causing the shooting.

However, that would presuppose that opening the door is a criminal or negligent act. It's certainly not criminal under any rational system of law, and while it might be negligent (or even stupid) such actions do not constitute escalation if the other person ignores the warning and advances into the home. Now, we have no dispute that the guy didn't come into the home, right? Well, in that case, under a civilized system of law (i.e. one that recognizes such concepts as self-defense and private property), he'd have been found innocent. Legally, I can open a door in a free society to find out why someone is banging on it without giving up my right of self-defense. Further, even if it's not the smartest thing to do, the law recognizes that when one's pulse is pounding, absolutely clear logic and reliance thereupon are not required.

[TallPine]

A little Zanyism goin' on here?

Sarge: exactly!

Except the Zanyism is mostly going on across the pond.

[agricola]

buzz,

opening the door per se is, of course, not a criminal act. the prosecution case (which was not believed by the jury) was that by opening the door Spray had intended to shoot the drunk -ie commit Grevious Bodily Harm with Intent, the intent being shown by the acts of taking the air rifle, loading it and then opening the door and pointing it at the drunk. That theory was not believed by the jury.

What convicted him was that the jury felt that his actions - in this case getting the gun and opening the door - were reckless (reckless as in the famed "what would the man on the Clapham omnibus think?") acts; that he could have dealt with that situation in a better way than he did and the end result of his reckless act was someone losing an eye. Those who are out of reflex bashing the UK legal system should note that there are no offensive weapons / firearms charges involved here.

edited to change the order of a sentence and grammar

[Don Gwinn]

Interesting. Our standard of reasonableness is said to be based on the "man in the street." Yours is based on a man with the clap riding a bus. . . . odd. :D

I understand the theory that opening the door is itself an escalation, but I can't agree with it. I'm glad the jury felt the same way. He was somewhat reckless.

I know I'm going to get blasted for that, but come on, folks! If you have a barrier between you and the crazy burglar, and you are armed with a pellet gun, you're a fool if you remove the barrier and decide to trust your life to that pellet gun.

My favorite was the part about how SAS shooters can't hit someone in the eye from five feet! Someone get those poor lads some ammo and send them off to practice! :rolleyes:

[TallPine]

Okay, I agree - the guy was reckless

He should have had a 12 gauge instead of a pellet gun

:neener:

[TexasVet]

not a 'firearms' violation;

He said any offences involving a firearm merited imprisonment but there were "exceptional features" which allowed it to be suspended.

[Byron Quick]

agricola,

I reckon I'm very reckless. I walk around the house with my door wide open in the spring time. It's getting hot here but not quite hot enough to justify the air conditioner. On the other hand, I'm walking around the house with a 1911 .45 ACP. If it goes in the intruder's eye then it will probably come out the back of his skull.
Guess what? It's legal.

I love it when you post. Every now and then, I find myself weakening in resolve. I'd really love to spend a few years in the British Museum. Then I read some crap such as this and realize that the ancestral homeland is now totally alien territory for such as I.

I thought that legal minds over here were diseased. They are as clear as a bell compared to what y'all have bred.

[TallPine]

I thought they already outlawed door locks in the UK ....?

Because burglars were hurting themselves breaking in.


edit: :D (for those who didn't get it)

[Battler]

I think they're still allowed door locks.

You might be remembering the old lady who was being hassled by her local government for putting barbed wire atop her fence after being burgled a bunch of times.


Byron: Do you know any "non gun nut" Brits in person? There is a sickness in the culture (at least in some people) - you merely see it manifested in the legal side.

I say again, though - self-defense is generally still (sort of) seen as noble in such places. If he had crushed the guy's skull with a sporting implement, or taken out his eye in a hand-to-hand mishap he would not have been in NEARLY the trouble.

[jmbg29]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a person was jailed in Britain.

Big deal. What difference would it make? They already live as helpless animals. So the cage gets a little smaller. So what?


Brits. :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[Battler]

Good point, ehheh :) - certainly, Jail isn't much worse than living in Cuba.

Another interesting point is the absolute inversion of the concept of "crime". They'll punish you more rigorously for having a weapon than actually hurting someone (weapon prohibition PREVENTS an injury, if it actually happens, well "done is done", right?)

Germany is quite funny - murderer can only do a max of 15 years (although in other countries you'd likely be paroled by/before then). It would be funny to be a Hannibal-Lector/Silence of the Lambs type character. You get locked up, and start planning out the rest of your "career" in 15 year chunks.

Prisoner A: "What do YOU plan to do when you get out again in 15?"

Prisoner B: "Been thinking of going Cannibal"

Prisoner A: "You can have my leftovers - I've gotten tired of waste disposal units, thinking of turning their skin into frisbees. Oh, and when they catch me and let me out AGAIN I was thinking of giving burning alive on upside down crosses a whirl."



Whoopee!

[Byron Quick]

Byron: Do you know any "non gun nut" Brits in person? There is a sickness in the culture (at least in some people) - you merely see it manifested in the legal side.

All of the British folk I know have been over here long enough to be shed of their indoctrination. Most are Republicans now. Guess the Labor folks don't leave.