Drizzt
Member
Copyright 2003 Nationwide News Pty Limited
Northern Territory News
January 22, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 768 words
HEADLINE: Change needed to protect our homes
BYLINE: By COL NEWMAN
BODY:
'The rights of the householders must take priority over the rights of the criminal'
SA PREMIER MIKE RANN
GOOD morning to you and I only hope you are not one of the unfortunate victims who last night had the terrible experience of someone breaking into your home.
On a recent trip to Adelaide, I was interested to see a headline in The Advertiser, which proposed new self-defence laws to be introduced into the SA Parliament aimed at awarding people the right to use "whatever force they deem necessary" to defend themselves against a home invader.
In the Territory, at the moment, we have very similar laws to other states on the matter of defending yourself if you wake up in the middle of the night and find you have an intruder in your bedroom.
These laws state you can defend yourself against the intruder provided you use a thing called "reasonable force"; and provided you only use this thing called "reasonable force" and not a baseball bat or a 9-iron, then you are protected from civil or criminal action. If you do take to the intruder with a baseball bat and really let him have a darn good hiding, then you could end up in court waiting on a legal decision on whether or not you have used more than "reasonable force" in defending your home.
"Reasonable" is determined by the courts looking at other cases and all the circumstances, and not by what you, the person before the court thought was reasonable at the time.
Our homes are our security, our private haven where we should be in control, and we should be able to shield ourselves from external danger.
The law as it stands in the NT says that if someone breaks into your home you are allowed to engage in defensive conduct without criminal liability. Defensive conduct is allowed if you protect yourself or another person, protect your property from being stolen, or remove someone from your property.
This defensive action must be a reasonable response under the circumstances, and defensive conduct does not include force intended to cause death or grievous harm.
All these words mean that you can hit the intruders with the baseball bat, but you must make sure you don't hit them too hard, or you could be in big trouble.
In the NT, if you act in self-defence using "reasonable force" you will not be criminally liable, nor can you be sued for damages; that is a civil claim cannot be taken out against you.
Criminals in the NT cannot sue property owners if they are injured in the course of committing a break-in or other crimes as has happened in other states such as SA, and the proposed changes will bring SA more in line with our law on this point.
The self defence law applies to commercial properties too, meaning a service station attendant who acts in self-defence while at work is in the same position and has the same protection as they would have in similar situations in their home.
The Territory's law is about to be extended to include protection of visitors to our home who act in self defence against intruders, and give us a hand in the struggle in overpowering the robber.
Our invited guests will soon be afforded the same protection as would the owner or tenant of the home.
The proposed SA amendments make sense to me and take away the uncertainty of someone on the judiciary deciding whether or not, in the heat of the moment, I was unreasonable in defending my home.
SA Premier Mike Rann said: "The rights of the householders must take priority over the rights of the criminal. What a judge might consider to be reasonable can be quite different to what someone does to defend themselves against a home invader at 2am."
The SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson also said: "The proposed changes would make householders feel the law was on their side and allow them to use a higher level of force than the intruder to prevent them entering the dwelling or causing an offence once inside."
All states operate on the principle that a person cannot intentionally kill or cause grievous bodily harm to another in order to protect property or for trespass, and I have no problem with that.
A spokesman for the NT Government tells me they are not set to make any such changes as SA proposes to their law, as the NT considers the present law serves us well and is consistent with other laws around the country.
I think a change to those few words in our laws taking out "reasonable force" and inserting "whatever force they deem necessary" would certainly make those people who invade our privacy stop and have second thoughts before breaking in to your place or mine.
Northern Territory News
January 22, 2003, Wednesday
SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 768 words
HEADLINE: Change needed to protect our homes
BYLINE: By COL NEWMAN
BODY:
'The rights of the householders must take priority over the rights of the criminal'
SA PREMIER MIKE RANN
GOOD morning to you and I only hope you are not one of the unfortunate victims who last night had the terrible experience of someone breaking into your home.
On a recent trip to Adelaide, I was interested to see a headline in The Advertiser, which proposed new self-defence laws to be introduced into the SA Parliament aimed at awarding people the right to use "whatever force they deem necessary" to defend themselves against a home invader.
In the Territory, at the moment, we have very similar laws to other states on the matter of defending yourself if you wake up in the middle of the night and find you have an intruder in your bedroom.
These laws state you can defend yourself against the intruder provided you use a thing called "reasonable force"; and provided you only use this thing called "reasonable force" and not a baseball bat or a 9-iron, then you are protected from civil or criminal action. If you do take to the intruder with a baseball bat and really let him have a darn good hiding, then you could end up in court waiting on a legal decision on whether or not you have used more than "reasonable force" in defending your home.
"Reasonable" is determined by the courts looking at other cases and all the circumstances, and not by what you, the person before the court thought was reasonable at the time.
Our homes are our security, our private haven where we should be in control, and we should be able to shield ourselves from external danger.
The law as it stands in the NT says that if someone breaks into your home you are allowed to engage in defensive conduct without criminal liability. Defensive conduct is allowed if you protect yourself or another person, protect your property from being stolen, or remove someone from your property.
This defensive action must be a reasonable response under the circumstances, and defensive conduct does not include force intended to cause death or grievous harm.
All these words mean that you can hit the intruders with the baseball bat, but you must make sure you don't hit them too hard, or you could be in big trouble.
In the NT, if you act in self-defence using "reasonable force" you will not be criminally liable, nor can you be sued for damages; that is a civil claim cannot be taken out against you.
Criminals in the NT cannot sue property owners if they are injured in the course of committing a break-in or other crimes as has happened in other states such as SA, and the proposed changes will bring SA more in line with our law on this point.
The self defence law applies to commercial properties too, meaning a service station attendant who acts in self-defence while at work is in the same position and has the same protection as they would have in similar situations in their home.
The Territory's law is about to be extended to include protection of visitors to our home who act in self defence against intruders, and give us a hand in the struggle in overpowering the robber.
Our invited guests will soon be afforded the same protection as would the owner or tenant of the home.
The proposed SA amendments make sense to me and take away the uncertainty of someone on the judiciary deciding whether or not, in the heat of the moment, I was unreasonable in defending my home.
SA Premier Mike Rann said: "The rights of the householders must take priority over the rights of the criminal. What a judge might consider to be reasonable can be quite different to what someone does to defend themselves against a home invader at 2am."
The SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson also said: "The proposed changes would make householders feel the law was on their side and allow them to use a higher level of force than the intruder to prevent them entering the dwelling or causing an offence once inside."
All states operate on the principle that a person cannot intentionally kill or cause grievous bodily harm to another in order to protect property or for trespass, and I have no problem with that.
A spokesman for the NT Government tells me they are not set to make any such changes as SA proposes to their law, as the NT considers the present law serves us well and is consistent with other laws around the country.
I think a change to those few words in our laws taking out "reasonable force" and inserting "whatever force they deem necessary" would certainly make those people who invade our privacy stop and have second thoughts before breaking in to your place or mine.
.