New licence to kill guidelines in UK

[jsalcedo]

You can kill a burglar if you have to, but not if you want to
By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor


HOUSEHOLDERS can attack and even kill intruders in defence of their home, new guidelines make clear.

People risk prosecution only if they step over the line to retribution or revenge or set a trap to hurt or kill an intruder.

The “licence to kill†guidelines, where people do what they “honestly and instinctively believe is necessaryâ€, have been drawn up to reassure the public over the force they can use when facing intruders.

People can use objects as weapons, such as a bat, knife or gun, and almost any level of violence against a burglar could be acceptable in the right situation, Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said.

The Government has ruled out a change in the law despite calls to do so, including one from the Tories — who want the concept of “reasonable force†replaced by “grossly disproportionate†— after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).

Ministers have decided, after concerns triggered by the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing a burglar, that the law is not properly understood.

The guidelines leaflet from the Crown Prosecution Service and Acpo aims to end confusion over the point at which defending one’s family and property becomes a crime. Even using items as weapons would not lead to prosecution if householders were doing what they “honestly and instinctively†believed was necessary “in the heat of the momentâ€, it says.

The leaflet, to go to Citizens Advice Bureaux and police forces in England and Wales, adds: “You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence.




“This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.â€

Fear is a factor, the leaflet says. The “more extreme the circumstances and fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defenceâ€.

The leaflet also points out that householders do not have to wait to be attacked before they use violence themselves. “If you have acted in reasonable self defence . . . and the intruder dies, you will still have acted lawfully.â€

But they are warned that if they cross the line into revenge, retribution or setting a deliberate trap, they can still face the courts. Chris Fox, the Acpo president, said officers would have to be satisfied that â€reasonable force†had not been overstepped. “There has to be a line, otherwise we develop into anarchy,†he said. “However, that line is quite a long way towards the householder. People will be questioned about what happened. There is going to be statement-taking and interviewing.â€

Mr Macdonald said: “The law is on the side of householders. Even where householders have badly injured or even killed burglars, the CPS has declined to prosecute unless they have used wholly excessive force.â€

He added: “My impression is that people were beginning to believe that we routinely prosecute householders who have protected themselves against burglars. That is completely untrue.â€

Almost any level of violence against a burglar could be acceptable in the right situation, he said. “The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn’t stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor.

“This is something the intruder brings on him or herself. I don’t think we need to be too squeamish about the situation.â€

There have been examples of householders not being prosecuted after intruders had been fatally stabbed or shot, or hit over the head with bats or metal bars, he added.

Mr Macdonald said that the CPS had brought only 11 prosecutions against householders in 15 years, including one in which a burglar was tied up, thrown into a pit and set alight.

He also made clear that, having been the victim of many burglaries — including four in one year at an East London home — he would not hesitate to incapacitate a burglar.

Once he, his wife and children had been sleeping. If he had encountered a man or two men in his kitchen, he said, he would have used force. “I would have thought of my children . . . I may be attacked, he may attack me and then go upstairs and I would not be prepared to have that happen.â€

THE CLUEDO GUIDELINES

Colonel Mustard awakes to find a burglar standing by his bedside — he reaches for a length of lead piping, strikes out and knocks him unconscious or kills him.
Lawful

Miss Scarlett hears noises in the night. She creeps downstairs and sees a burglar in her dining room. He has not seen her. She seizes a candlestick, hides behind the door and strikes him unconscious.
Lawful

The Rev Green is woken by the noise of a burglar making his escape. He races after him and and with the butt of his revolver knocks him unconscious to the ground.
Lawful

Mrs White disturbs a burglar in the library. She seizes a knife in the kitchen and stabs him. He falls to the ground and is rapidly becoming unconscious. Just to teach him a lesson she stabs him again.
Unlawful

Professor Plum hears on the grapevine that a man he suspects of thefts from his house is planning forced entry through the kitchen. He lies in wait to trap the burglar and then shoots him or knocks him unconscious.
Unlawful

Mrs Peacock disturbs burglars in the billiard room. They flee empty-handed. She chases after them with a shotgun and shoots one of them dead.
Unlawful

THE NEW ADVICE

What is ‘reasonable force’?

You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of your acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon. The more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.


What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence and the intruder dies,you will still have acted lawfully.


When would my actions not be lawful?

If having knocked someone unconscious you decided to hurt them further or kill them to punish them; or you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or kill.


What if I chase them as they run off?

You are no longer acting in self-defence and the same degree of force may not be reasonable. You are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen’s arrest.

Do I have to wait to be attacked?

No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1466593,00.html

 

[agricola]

sort of a duplicate thread, but even then the Times has got it wrong in its puerile "Cluedo" analogies - a case like "Mrs Peacock" was not deemed to be unlawful (admittedly the burglar didnt die), and Mrs. White's actions are not unlawful up until the second stabbing, and I defy anyone to imagine a scenario in which she tells the Police that in interview.

The lack of a correction for the past five years of Times reporting on this matter is also galling.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

These guidelines are a step back toward reason and rationality, but IMHO the line at which anarchy begins is the threshold of my door. It should not be against the law to set a trap for criminals. If they don't want to be shot/stabbed/blown up/inundated with boiling oil/fed to wolves, they can simply elect not to break into other people's houses. End of problem.

 

[HankB]

Professor Plum hears on the grapevine that a man he suspects of thefts from his house is planning forced entry through the kitchen. He lies in wait to trap the burglar and then shoots him or knocks him unconscious. Unlawful

I don't see anything wrong with the hypothetical Professor Plum's actions, as long as he lies in wait within his own home and doesn't set some sort of automated trap . . . I mean, in what scenario would he tell the police that he was waiting for the burglar?

 

[agricola]

Hawkmoon,

It isnt a "step back", this is how it has been ever since R v Shannon - as I have repeatedly said since I started on TFL.

Its also not unlawful to lie in wait for someone who is breaking into your home, what the original release said was that it is probably unlawful to do so and not make an attempt to call the Police; as HankB notes, this is not a scenario that you could imagine coming about.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Its also not unlawful to lie in wait for someone who is breaking into your home, what the original release said was that it is probably unlawful to do so and not make an attempt to call the Police

And my point is that it should NOT be unlawful to lie in wait for an intruder. It should also not be unlawful to set an automated trap, such as a shotgun wired to the doorknob, or a Claymore.

It is both illegal and immoral to break into another person's house, whether the intent is burglary, robbery, rape, assult, or murder. People who engage in such activities should be fair game.

I don't know what the response time is in your jurisdiction, Agricola, but where I live if I called the police in the middle of the night to report an intruder had just smashed through my front door, the first responding officer MIGHT arrive within 10 minutes, although 15 minutes is probably more realistic. Why should I have to call the police? To tell them I have the guy in my sights and request their permission to pull the trigger? The dispatcher on the other end of the telephone isn't even a sworn officer ... he/she is just a "civilian." What are they going to do for me while the bad guy tromps up the stairs to the bedroom?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Considering the government's former attitude was that 'burglars are citizens, too, and are entitled to be protected from householder violence', it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Sparks]

It should also not be unlawful to set an automated trap, such as a shotgun wired to the doorknob, or a Claymore.

And if the guy who kicks in the door is an EMT who's been told that you've been seen collapsed and twitching in your living room by some kid making a prank call to 999?

Considering the government's former attitude was that 'burglars are citizens, too, and are entitled to be protected from householder violence', it's a step in the right direction.

I think you'll find the prior attitude was that "burglars have rights too" and that more specifically, they were thinking of things like the right to not be deprived of life without due process, as happened in the 11 cases over the past 15 years where people decided to punish burglars. Such as one case where the homeowner knocked the burglar out, tied him up and then set fire to him.

 

[Faithless]

"To the cursory eye, the impression given is that the government has backed down and responded to public pressure for a change in the law to give citizens more rights to fight back against intruders and attackers. In reality, the government has done no such thing. Instead, those various branches of the state responsible for law enforcement have collaborated on a public statement...

None of which sounds unreasonable per se, but all of which is merely a re-statement of the law as it currently stands. This is not a change of heart or a climbdown or a fresh start or anything else of that nature. This is just yesterday's bill of fare, re-heated and served up with a garnish of finely-chopped press release.

In essence this is political chaff; a big bunch of glittery tinsel ejected into the air in order to deflect the heat-seeking missile of public disquiet. It appears to have done the trick."

copy pasted from

 

[R.H. Lee]

as happened in the 11 cases over the past 15 years where people decided to punish burglars. Such as one case where the homeowner knocked the burglar out, tied him up and then set fire to him.

In context, Sparks old chap, how many 'householders' were killed, beaten or robbed by burglars in that same time period, eh?

 

[Sparks]

In context, Sparks old chap, how many 'householders' were killed, beaten or robbed by burglars in that same time period, eh?

Quite a lot, including those who owned firearms. However, firstly the number of those who have been hurt or killed has nothing to do with whether or not you have a right to defend yourself, and secondly, the number of those who have been hurt or killed does not grant a householder a right to suspend the basic rights of other people like that, that's the job of the courts. The punishment for burglary isn't the death penalty, an individual doesn't have the right to decide to overrule that. Not in the UK (or in Ireland) at any rate.

 

[R.H. Lee]

the number of those who have been hurt or killed does not grant a householder a right to suspend the basic rights of other people like that, that's the job of the courts.

The appropriate view is that anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling with the intent to commit a crime has voluntarily forfeited any 'rights' he may have had.

The punishment for burglary isn't the death penalty, an individual doesn't have the right to decide to overrule that. Not in the UK (or in Ireland) at any rate.

Hell, the punishment for murder isn't the death penalty, is it?

Thank God my ancestors left that place years ago.

 

[Sparks]

The appropriate view is that anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling with the intent to commit a crime has voluntarily forfeited any 'rights' he may have had.

No, that's your view. It's not the view of the courts. And as to "appropriate" views, I think they depend on an individual's moral beliefs and as such are highly subjective.

Hell, the punishment for murder isn't the death penalty, is it?

No, life imprisonment. Taking away someone's life, in other words, without that cheap cop-out of giving them a quick, clean exit. (It constantly surprises me that a state founded on the principle of seperating church and state has such a strong belief in divine justice as to not extract any secular justice from murderers).

 

[R.H. Lee]

No, that's your view. It's not the view of the courts. And as to "appropriate" views, I think they depend on an individual's moral beliefs and as such are highly subjective.

and

No, life imprisonment. Taking away someone's life, in other words, without that cheap cop-out of giving them a quick, clean exit. (It constantly surprises me that a state founded on the principle of seperating church and state has such a strong belief in divine justice as to not extract any secular justice from murderers).

Sparks, I don't know how you could have articulated the statist view more clearly. The notion that the state (society) has collective 'rights', but the individual has none is an anathema to Americans. What you're saying is that whoever is in control makes the rules and everyone else must obey. Furthermore, those rules are whimsical and subject to fanciful change whenever the mood strikes, and based on the 'collective' desires of the society as interpreted by the ruling class.

You further attempt to impugn the death penalty by linking it somehow to religion. This is the classic 'collectivist' mindset wherein there is no higher authority than the state, who can do whatever it wishes because, after all, there is no higher authority. Chillingly Hitleresque. I fear for your country, my friend.

 

[TDPerk]

When you have to fire a gun, you fire until the threat goes down.

The equivalent being that Mrs. White should be able to legally stab her assailant until he is unconcscious. If she can get in 30 before he is not a threat, more power to her.

There is no justifiable line of reasoning which tends to preserve the life of an attacker at the potential expense of the person attacked.

There is no practical right of self defense in England.

Yours, TDP, ml ,msl, & pfpp

 

[jsalcedo]

Maybe I'm barbaric but I think once someone invades your home all of their rights are immediately null and void.

If the homeowner wants to tie up the intuder in the basement and force them to listen to John Tesh albums so be it.

If a burgler, rapist, vandal thinks they have rights in someone elses home its almost like the government is sanctioning their activities.

It sounds like the home invasion problem has become so bad in the UK that the government has to reaffirm the peoples right to defend themselves and their homes.

 

[Art Eatman]

The way all this looks to me:

Folks in England are no different than folks in the U.S.: They get their understanding of the law from the media or from their friends--as fellow posters on internet sites, among others. Few people go to a law library and read through pertinent sections of the Annotated Civil Statutes.

Thus Osborne's misunderstanding of the FACTS of the Martin case led to his behavior--which resulted in his plea. His misunderstanding apparently stemmed from his reading of the newspapers.

Okay: It seems that what we have here, as a response to a lot of public griping, is an effort to clarify what the actual law has been all along.

Art

 

[Iain]

Riley,

I think you just invoked Godwin's Law.

As I understand these guidelines they are nothing new, and only support what Agricola has been saying.

Art is right.

Maybe I'm barbaric but I think once someone invades your home all of their rights are immediately null and void.

Does that include their right not to be tied up and set on fire? This happened in one of the eleven cases from the last fifteen years.

 

[TDPerk]

And this is how it looks to me.

Osborn plead guilty to a lesser crime because he was at risk of being found guilty of a crime with a far higher penalty. Given the circumstances known about the case, he can only have been at risk of conviction for the more serious crime if the prosecutors in England are far more concerned with collecting scalps, the right of self defense be damned, than they are with giving the document beginning the thread any real effect if they think they can get away with anything that depreciates the right of self defense, but produces convictions.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

 

[agricola]

TDPerk, I think you are approaching the point of becoming a troll. We dont know what the evidence was against him; we are left with the choices that either the evidence was overwhelming and it wasnt self defence, or his own version that he and his lawyers thought that self defence was illegal.

Given that anyone who is interested can demonstrate, using only the internet or a copy of Blackstones, that self defence is not illegal in the UK, I rather tend towards the former. His lawyers want shooting if that was their advice, but remember the stories we have of the case are from exactly the same papers that have now been demonstrated to have been deeply guilty of misleading their readerships, of terrorising them.

Art, you have it exactly right. This is what the law has been since at least 1981 - the confusion is down to elements of the media, and some Tories who have tried to feed off that trough. The idea that this is some kind of spin is ludicrous, because the way the law has been interpreted since R v Shannon has been consistent - clear self defence has never been prosecuted, dubious cases have sometimes been prosecuted, and only the cases that were blatantly not self defence have resulted in convictions.

Of course, the scandal is here that we have had elements of the media deliberately decieve the population of the UK, which has led to (if you believe Osborn) at least one person being incarcerated and Lord knows how many others terrified to be within their own homes. If we had a Press Complaints Commission worth the name, then there would be at least two less broadsheets and one tabloid that would never be sold again; but sadly we dont.

 

[jsalcedo]

Does that include their right not to be tied up and set on fire? This happened in one of the eleven cases from the last fifteen years.

So be it. The crook didn't have to break in. I have absolutely no sympathy
for thieves. If we would just declare open season on home invaders
it stands to reason that particular crime would fall drastically.


Personally I wouldn't set a burglar on fire. I'ts too messy and I don't have proper ventilation.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I think you just invoked Godwin's Law.

If I did, StJohns, may I take the fact that you pointed it out as a concession?

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Hell, the punishment for murder isn't the death penalty, is it?

Not in the US. Not really. Less than 1000 executions in the last 30 years.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186

Taking away someone's life, in other words,
without that cheap cop-out of giving them a quick, clean exit.

Yeah, that's exactly right. Just like Richard Speck:
"If they only knew how much fun I was having in here, they would turn me loose."

http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/speck.html

 

[Standing Wolf]

...a change in the law to give citizens more rights to fight back against intruders and attackers.

Rights are intrinsically human, not granted by governments. The British always seem to get everything backweird.

 

[Iain]

If I did, StJohns, may I take the fact that you pointed it out as a concession?

If you want, although I think Spark gets the say on that one.

Jscaledo - could we say that tying a burglar up and setting him on fire is a little bit unreasonable? You know, just a tiny bit over the top, like Aunt Margaret gets on four sherries before Uncle John takes her home?