legal right to defend in England

[igorts]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/2303004/Have-a-go-heroes-get-legal-right-to-defend-themselves.html

Not bad for England...

 

[La Pistoletta]

"Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that people would be protected legally if they defend themselves "instinctively”; they fear for their own safety or that of others; and the level of force used is not excessive or disproportionate."

Disproportionate to what? The criminal's "right" to commit crime compared to the victim's right to be free from it? What proportions could there possibly be? The former is a piece of dung and the latter is a human being. Both are off the scale, but in diametrically opposed directions.

Note how the defense must be "instinctive". You can't actually morally believe in your right to defend yourself as an innocent, oh no. It has to be kneejerk. Don't think for a second you're actually an independant person who is a goal unto yourself.

*golfclap*


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpiAtiZx5Q

 

[dmftoy1]

I guess it's a step in the right direction .. it'll be interesting to see the first case under that law. There was a pretty horrific one in 2002-2004 when I was over there working where an 82 year old former SAS Sgt had someone break into his house . . .while the 2 (or 3?) twentysomethings were in his house he kicked the living crap out of them. I can't remember if he killed one or not but I definately remember that he broke one of their arms in about 4 places. Anyway they threw the guy in jail for it . . . . .I was aghast.

FWIW

 

[La Pistoletta]

82 year old former SAS Sgt had someone break into his house . . .while the 2 (or 3?) twentysomethings were in his house he kicked the living crap out of them. I can't remember if he killed one or not but I definately remember that he broke one of their arms in about 4 places. Anyway they threw the guy in jail for it . . . . .I was aghast.

How quintessentially European. I'm not even surprised anymore.

 

[hso]

Here's the news release the article is based on.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease150708a.htm

New law backs 'have-a-go' heroes 15 July 2008 New laws coming into force today will give homeowners and 'have-a-go' heroes defending themselves greater confidence, Justice Secretary Jack Straw said today. The self defence provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will make clear to the public, prosecutors and the police that those who use reasonable force to protect themselves or others should not be prosecuted. As long as they use no more force than absolutely necessary, people should have confidence that the law will support them, so long as: they acted instinctively they feared for their safety or that of others, and acted based on their perception of the threat faced and the scale of that threat they acted to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained the level of force used was not excessive or disproportionate in the circumstances as they viewed them. Jack Straw said: 'The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens, but also be seen to work on their side. The government strongly supports the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force. This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim. 'Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it's the responsibility of all of us. Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it - in other words, making a reality of justice. 'These changes in the law will make clear - victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system. We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal.' Examples of householders or victims not being prosecuted include: Robbery at a newsagent's. One of the two robbers died after being stabbed by the newsagent. The Crown Prosecution Service did not prosecute the newsagent but prosecuted the surviving robber who was jailed for six years. A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home. There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence. Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. The barmaid was not prosecuted. Two burglars entered a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died. There was no prosecution of the householder but the remaining burglar was convicted. A middle aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull. The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute. Examples where prosecutions for excessive use of force did result include:

A man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, tied him up, beat him, threw him into a pit and set fire to him.

A number of people trespassed on private land to go night-time fishing. They were approached by a man with a shotgun who threatened to shoot them. They ran away but one of the men was shot in the back with a mass of 40 shotgun pellets.

A householder lay in wait for a burglar who tried to burgle his shed. The householder shot him in the back.

Other provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act coming into force today include:

a presumption that if a defendant fails to appear in court, the trial will continue in his or her absence.

The government believes that defendants should not be able to escape justice by failing to appear at trial. The proposal should result in more defendants being tried in their absence where they fail to appear without giving a good reason. The government hopes that this will encourage defendants to appear at trial. Notes to editors 1. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act received Royal Assent on 9 May 2008. 2. Provisions of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 coming into force today include: changes to public protection sentences restriction on the power to make a community order to imprisonable offences only requirement for pre-sentence reports to be in writing in cases where a court is considering passing a custodial sentence in respect of a person under 18 bringing parole arrangements for foreign national prisoners liable to deportation sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 into line with those applicable to 2003 Act prisoners fixed-term recall reduction from 40 to 20 hours the minimum period for an unpaid work requirement that may be imposed for breach of a community order change to the test for ordering a retrial where the Court of Appeal allow a prosecution appeal against a terminating ruling technical changes to the procedure governing criminal appeals restriction on the grounds on which a person charged with an imprisonable summary offence or relevant low-level criminal offence may be refused bail the legal aid provisions, including allowing the right to representation to be applied for and granted provisionally before the point of charge and allowing Her Majesty's Courts Service staff processing means tested applications to access HM Revenue and Customs and Department for Work and Pensions records for purpose of assessing financial eligibility duty on MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) authorities to consider disclosure of information about convictions of child sex offenders (Home Office lead) sex offender notification requirements (Home Office lead - the commencement of section 142 will enable regulations to be made in the autumn imposing additional notification requirements such as the provision of email addresses) one technical provision (relating to the time limits for bringing before a court persons arrested under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in respect of retrials for serious offences) is being commenced on 15 July to avoid the need for complex transitional provisions.

 

[browningguy]

What exactly are they going to defend themselves with?

Firearms are essentially outlawed, I guess a good quality cricket bat will have to do.

 

[bigjohnson]

I read a post on another gun board about an American couple who went to England. They rented a large motorcycle, and were planning to motor all around the British Isles for two weeks or so. Their 2nd day in London, they went to a pub that had been recommended by a friend. They had to park their bike a block or so away, and started to walk to the pub, carrying their helmets. Three local toughs tried to snatch the wife's purse, and the two Americans responded by beating the crap out of the "toughs", using the motorcycle helmets as well as their feet and fists. The "toughs" ran off and complained to the police. The two Americans were arrested for assaulting the three with their helmets, were held in jail overnight, and were expelled from the country. They never had the opportunity to go back and get the motorcycle, which "disappeared", and now are being billed several thousand dollars to replace it.
Maybe with this new law, things might change. But from what I understand, London is the most dangerous city in the European Union. Not a lot of murders, but muggings and assaults by gangs of drunks are an everyday occurance.

 

[Redtail]

I read this news too about a family man trying to defend his family in his own home. This teenager broke into his house, the man was able to hold him off until the police arrive, to his surprise he was the one that got arrested instead of the young hooligan.

I heard too that if somebody is assaulting you supposed to be in a crouching position instead of defending yourself, so when the police arrive they know which one is the good guy, which I think is really ridiculous.

Legal right to defend oneself is nonexistent in England.

 

[jagugator]

All I can say is WOW!!!!!!!

This was the last part of the first article. I do believe the bobbies think they are the cable company?

It came as it emerged that homeowners could have to wait up to three days after reporting a crime to see a police officer, according to a leaked draft of the Policing Green Paper.

It sets out new national standards for local policing for all 43 forces cross England and Wales.

Callers to the police will be given set times within which officers will attend an incident.

The paper says that this will be "within three hours it if requires policing intervention or three days if there is less immediate need for a police presence."

 

[Isildur]

I wonder what the situation in England was like until now? Even in the bureaucratic center of anti-gun folks(named Germany) there still is an unchallenged right to self defence(as well as defence of the rights of others).

 

[Zoogster]

said that people would be protected legally if they defend themselves "instinctively”; they fear for their own safety or that of others; and the level of force used is not excessive or disproportionate

Legal to defend yourself as long as you don't plan for it, and are not ready to do it. As long as you do not make the conscience decision to use force on someone everything is ok.

If it is totaly instinctive, you just lash out at your poor criminal attacker then you will not be punished, as long as you instinctualy do not lash out with excessive force.


So let me get this straight. It is okay to defend yourself if it passes the 'instinctive' test, but if the totaly unplanned untrained unrehearsed act is in any way excessive force it is not legal.

So you better not be thinking about what you do, but while you do it you need to think enough to not do too much?

My head hurts when I try to understand these people. More street cameras should fix it, just add more cameras. Oh and more weapon bans, yeah that is the ticket, ban anything anyone chooses to use in criminal acts. Of course planned self defense sounds like a criminal act so I guess banning weapons useful for that is a good idea too.

 

[romma]

You can legally defend yourself, but we reserve the right change the rules if we want.

We get to say legally defending yourself is not legal... Because we said so!

 

[brickeyee]

However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them.

Chasing them down might not be reasonable, but if you are asleep in bed is that "lying in wait to ambush"?

Only in England would you need to establish the law allows you to actually defend yourself.

 

[Zoogster]

Chasing them down might not be reasonable, but if you are asleep in bed is that "lying in wait to ambush"?

Stopping them in your home during a home invasion can be unreasonable.
If you are safely upstairs and hear them downstairs going after them can be viewed as unnecessary excessive force.

Yet if you sit ready in your bedroom with a gun oh wait most won't have that, I mean a sword oh wait most of those are illegal and banned, how about a cricket bat, yeah there we go, then that is lying in wait to ambush them.

The law is clearly designed so in any situation they can decide whether or not they wish to punish the individual. Every situation is technicaly illegal.
It is a common tyrannical move, make most things illegal, and even make following some laws require breaking another. In addition make some things illegal that are expected to be broken and usualy not enforced.
Then who is law abiding is always at the discretion of the authorities and the people must be subservient and obedient because at any time someone can be held responsible for thier normal but illegal behavior.

Mexico has many such laws. Many normal things done be the citizens and not enforced by the police are illegal, allowing for discretionary enforcement. Places with such situations obviously do not have freedom and liberty.

 

[The Bushmaster]

What is a "have-a-go" hero???

 

[kevindsingleton]

"A man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, tied him up, beat him, threw him into a pit and set fire to him."

Now, that sounds like a good burglary deterrent! What's wrong with that?

A "have-a-go" hero is an old Englishman in a smoking jacket with his dukes up inviting a burglar to "have-a-go", or, in American, "throw down". As if!

Did we really descend from these people? Whatever happened to the English? Do they realize the entire free world is laughing out loud at them?

 

[bdickens]

And these are the people who once had an empire that spanned the globe....

What happened to the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons that used to inhabit those islands?

 

[hso]

Wow! We sure have a lot of expat Brits who know the UK law expounding on this. We're very lucky to have folks with first hand knowledge of the British law instead of folks passing off second hand information they've not bothered to verify.

From a real Brit in the UK that is a member here.

Yes it is legitimate, but it's a non-story really. We already have the right to use reasonable force to defend ourselves, another, or to prevent a crime. The police and the Criminal Prosecution Service already don't take people to court who it is believed acted in self-defence. All this law does is put that into law (the CPS can only make a prosecution if it is believed to be in the public interest and if there is reasonable certainty of conviction - neither of which has generally been the case in instances of self-defence - the law just makes things a bit tighter).

I read the Telegraph this morning with the headline 'You can legally shoot a burglar' and I thought "I know that already!" An acquaintance of mine shot two thieves (killing one of them) who tried to run him over in a stolen car, and was never taken to court. And that's no one of case, people defend themselves all the time and none of them go to jail.

The famous case is of course that of Tony Martin, who shot two burglars, killing one, and went to prison. But the men were running away from him and thus it was not self-defence. He even could have avoided jail just by showing remorse, but he refused.

When they give me back my pistols, semi-auto rifles and 'short' shotguns, and let me carry them in public, then I'll be happy

 

[Boris Barowski]

Belgium: A couple of years a go there was a case of a guy who broke into a house at night. Owner gets up, sees the burglar and for some reason there was a wrench lying around (construction, or was it in the garage, I don't know). The owner throws the wrench, hits the burglar in the face and he has to be hospitalised. The man who threw the wrench had to pay for the hospital visits and revalidation because it was disproportionate to the intent of the burglar.

Great country I live in.

 

[Jim K]

Until fairly recently (post WWII) the British people had the right to defend themselves, until a series of "Labour" (socialist/communist) governments took it away after criminal organizations paid out hefty bribes in order to be "let alone." In this, the criminals were, as usual, aided and abetted by various "rights" organizations, themselves recipients of many pounds from organized crime.

Jim

 

[Picard]

What happened to the Celts and the Anglo-Saxons that used to inhabit those islands?

They must be rolling in their graves.

 

[brickeyee]

Wow! We sure have a lot of expat Brits who know the UK law expounding on this. We're very lucky to have folks with first hand knowledge of the British law instead of folks passing off second hand information they've not bothered to verify.

Except despite the rest of your post the UK dod prosecute a farmer who used a break action shotgun to shoot a burglar in the act.
And he was convicted.

Perhaps the subjects have decided things have gone a little too far?

Things can quickly get dicey when you have NO rights not subject to the government.
Parliament can take away ANY right.

 

[Starship1st]

Well England it is a start. D.C., Chicago, and San Francisco you need to wise up and admit the police can not protect all of the city's citizens. Stop holding back law abiding citizens.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

It didn't occur to me until it was stated by someone arguing (with no opponent) on NPR against the Castle Doctrine, but it's quite plausible that in the amount of time that it takes for the sight of a threat to travel from a person's eyes to their brain, for their brain to commit to shooting, for the signal to travel to whichever muscles in the person's arms and hands, and for the muscles themselves to react to that signal, the target who was facing and threatening the shooter may have rotated the 120 degrees or so required for them to be shot in the back instead of the front or side.