Shot Burglar to Sue

Not open for further replies.


Feb 1, 2003

Thats it, England is officially past the point of no return :cuss:
He was shot in the leg in the comission of a break-in.

A burglar who says he cannot enjoy sex after he was shot and injured by Tony Martin has won the right to sue the jailed farmer for damages.

Brendon Fearon, 33, successfully asked a judge at Nottingham County Court to overturn an earlier decision that threw out his claim.

Fearon will sue Martin for a reported £15,000 following his wounding during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

During the burglary Martin shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Fearon claims that his injuries, which included a leg wound, have affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts and that he has suffered post-traumatic stress.

He claims he cannot even watch shoot-outs on television or in movies because of the memories of the incident.

Fearon was jailed for his part in the raid on Martin's home and has more than 30 criminal convictions.

He has been granted legal aid to mount his claim for damages.

Malcolm Starr, a friend and campaigner for Martin, said: "This is disgraceful and means yet more public money will be wasted on this claim.

Tony expected this to happen, because of flaws in the law that must now be addressed."

Mr Starr added: "Public opinion must be at boiling point. People will be gobsmacked that the law can be so wrong."

Earlier this year, Fearon, of Newark, was told that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims that he has been unable to work because of his injuries.

But the judge who made today's ruling said the mistakes of Fearon's solicitors should not prevent him getting his case for compensation heard in a court of law.

The judge also pointed out that the case has a great deal of public interest concerning the rights of both householders and trespassers.

Henry Bellingham, Tory MP for Martin's constituency in Norfolk, said: "I feel very strongly that no criminal should have any right after he has broken into a property - all legal rights should be left outside the property that was burgled."
I am wondering, are these cases being heard by a judge or by a jury?
I can see a judge being so stupid as to finding verdicts for the burglar, but a jury finding for him just doesn't seem possible. I guess they could be as brainwashed as the judge.
Keep us updated, and remember, 10 years from now this could be us!:scrutiny:
What happened to the old idea that a criminal can not profit from his crime? Now-a-days they sue their victims and sell book and movie rights to their mis-deeds. Whats wrong with this picture.:banghead:

Seems to me that if anybody gets sued, it should be the burglar, for recovery of the cost of spent ammunition, and the burglar's attourney, for fileing a frivilous suit which effectively harrasses the victim, the Farmer.:confused: I know, I know, that would seem to logical for today's world.:rolleyes: BTW, why is the Farmer in jail? For protecting his property?

There really were some Good Things about the Good Old Days . As a senior citizen, I can say that our Grand Parents were NOT stupid. They knew how and were willing to deal with the criminals and thats why they had less crime. Perhaps one day we will rediscover their wisdom.
What idiocy. The British must be an awfully passive and backward people to tolerate this perversity.

What's even more perverse is that Tony Martin was jailed simply for having the means to defend himself in the first place.

And now, on his release, he is gonna get sued by the surviving piece of scum. Pity he didn't meet the fate of the other burglar.

Human rights this, human rights that. What about peoples human right to have the means to defend themselves and to exercise that means when needed?

:fire: :cuss: :banghead:
A burglar who says he cannot enjoy sex after he was shot and injured by Tony Martin

If he were in prison, where he belongs, I doubt he'd be enjoying sex either. More to the point, HE wouldn't be enjoying sex - no mention of his cell block, though. :evil:
Oh, for the love of....

But, you shoot 'em and wound 'em, you deal with him and his lawyer;

you shoot 'em and kill 'em, you deal with his "loving" family and their lawyer.
So let me get this straight:

Thief and accomplice try to burgle farmhouse and are foiled. Accomplice dies on the scene and thief is arrested. He goes to jail for 3 years. Upon release he may now sue for 'damages'

Farmer is arrested and convicted. He gets to spend the next 7 years in jail. Neighbors must now guard historic farmhouse.

Interlopers come and burgle house repeatedly, stealing 200 year old outhouse tiles.

Justice has been served. :banghead:

Link to article detailing subsequent break-ins
"I am wondering, are these cases being heard by a judge or by a jury?"

Judge. Jury trials are almost gone in Britain, except for criminal cases, and Blair wants to do away with those. Too many little people expressing their real opinions in the jury box. Got to leave all those decisions up to someone who went to Oxford and wears a wig.
In his first interview, David Hatch, chairman of the Parole Board, tells Richard Ford that Martin, the farmer who shot a teenage burglar, is a dangerous man who should not be freed
THE spotlight is shining on the Parole Board more brightly than ever this summer. The high-profile cases of Tony Martin and Jeffrey Archer - one refused parole, the other applying for it - ensure that it is firmly in the public eye.
It is a position that the board has largely avoided during its 36-year existence, but one that David Hatch, the retiring chairman, predicts is inevitable given rising public interest in criminal justice and the greater focus on victims of crime.
Hatch, 64, has spent the past two years being careful that, as attention is focused on the board, the public and Government can have confidence in its decisions to release prisoners on parole.
"We are one of those little forgotten areas that goes about its rather important work and does it rather well," Hatch says in his only newspaper interview since taking the job in 2000.
He expresses frustration at the general lack of understanding of the board's job, but says that every decision it takes is based on a rigorous assessment of the risk to the public of anyone considered for release.
"Everyone should know that the most important consideration is the safety of the public," he says. "That is first, second and third, and comes before considering the liberty of the individual."
This belief made him bullish about the way the board handled the case of Tony Martin, the farmer given five years for the manslaughter of a teenage burglar at his isolated farm in Norfolk. Martin was refused parole; then, amid unprecedented publicity, his lawyers challenged the decision in the High Court. They failed to win a review of the decision, but not before parts of the media had found against the board.
Hatch, who retires this November, is unshaken by the furore. "I was very confident we made absolutely the right decision in the Tony Martin case," he says.
"If the press decides to have a view about something, the press will have a view about something. Tango-ing with the press does not get you very far.
"Mr Martin was a very dangerous man. He shot a 16-year-old boy and killed him, shot him in the back at a range of about four feet."
Hatch says that irrespective of what the press thinks, the job of the board is to protect the public. There had been a full and proper assessment of Martin's case. "We said he was a dangerous man and he should stay in. I am very glad that a High Court judge saw it our way."
The board comprises 110 members, including 23 judges, 19 psychiatrists, five criminologists, nine probation officers, and 51 independent members. Individual parole decisions are made by smaller panels.
Hatch's confidence in the board's approach is a result of a strategy involving a tougher applications procedure, rigorous training, appraisal of the way members operate, plus reviews when cases go seriously wrong.
It has not reached this position without resistance. Hatch is diplomatic, but it is clear that judges have taken some persuading of the necessity of proper interviews and appraisals of the way they operate.
Though he is a reformer, there is one change that would be a step too far for Hatch. While he recognises the need for greater transparency in the board's work, he is opposed to allowing the public access to hearings.
"I have seen a video of an open parole hearing in the United States, and I would hope it would not be introduced here," he declares
[Times 27-05-03]
We are one of those little forgotten areas that goes about its rather important work and does it rather well," Hatch says in his only newspaper interview since taking the job in 2000.

What a perverse comment comment from the head of a parole board (Hatch) that is presently incarcerating a political prisoner who's only "crime" was an act of self defense. The same parole board which undoubtedly released innumerable times, the very criminal thugs who burglurized Martin's home.

What a sick, twisted, low minded bastard (Hatch). :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire: :cuss:

(I know this is the High Road but it needed saying.) :fire:

thats the thing - the act was not one of self defence, and Martin had a long history of, to put the best face on it, "eccentric" behaviour with his shotgun.

the Parole Board made the correct decision IMHO based on the history of that individual.
In a way I do hope the perp sues mr Martin.

I hope mr Martin gets a good defense team which then proceeds to make (legal) mincemeat out of the perp's case, but runs up a sizable legal bill in the process.

I further hope that the judge then rules against the perp and, as permitted under english law, sticks the perp with the full costs, including those by the defense team.

ErikM :evil:

From what I have read, admittedly across 3000+ miles of open water, Martin's previous transgressions amounted to threatening trespassers on his property with the shotgun he eventually used against the two thugs, that and not properly registering the gun.

That's eccentric behavior then only by virtue of reference to a society that itself is seriously out of whack.

Both "offenses" seem to be perfectly understandable given the constant threat of robbery the citizens in that area seem to face.

IMO Martin is a political prisoner kept in prison to serve as a warning to anyone else who might choose to ignore the inhumane firearms laws pushed by the extremist left-wing ideologues in control of the UK's government.
Not open for further replies.