Drizzt
Member
Copyright 2003 Century Newspapers Limited
Belfast News Letter
January 21, 2003, Tuesday
SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 18
LENGTH: 1108 words
HEADLINE: WHEN A BURGLAR PUTS YOU ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW...
HIGHLIGHT:
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: many victims of crime find themselves being prosecuted after attacking an intruder in their home; JAILED: Norfolk farmer Tony Martin who shot dead an intruder
BODY:
You regard yourself as a right-thinking, law-abiding member of society - unlike the common criminal who has broken into your home. Yet when you attack them in self-defence, it's you who is up in court over assault charges. RACHAEL CROFTS finds out exactly who the law protects
IT'S dark, you're sleeping soundly in bed, and then suddenly you're awakened by a noise downstairs. There's an intruder in your home, the one place where you and your family ought to be safe. What do you do? Gripped by fear, it's hard to think rationally, but the actions you take now could have very serious consequences. You may have the moral high ground, but do you have the protection of the law?
Footballer Duncan Ferguson has twice been burgled, and twice he has tackled the offenders - risking the threat of prosecution in the process.
Just days ago the Scottish player was quizzed by police after a burglar he restrained in his home in Formby, Merseyside, made a complaint of assault against him.
Police officers interviewed the 32-year-old Everton player, known to fans as "Big Dunc", but eventually decided that he acted reasonably to protect his wife and young daughter.
Merseyside Police's Assistant Chief Constable Ian McPherson explains: "Mr Ferguson was in the security of his home with his wife and child when this happened.
"He did not invite the man into his home and he was put in a position where he felt the need to protect his family. There is no evidence to suggest that he acted unreasonably."
The offender had already admitted intent to steal from the player when he appeared at a magistrates court, but, in accordance with the law, the police were obliged to investigate his complaint against Ferguson.
The break-in came two years and a day after the Scottish star tackled two burglars at his former home in Rufford, Lancs.
That struggle left one of the offenders needing hospital treatment and both were jailed for 15 months in April 2001.
Although the player faced no further action in either case, it didn't stop him being questioned by police bound by the law to investigate all allegations, including those of criminals.
Burglary has been in the spotlight after the Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Woolf, sparked outrage when he recommended that some burglars should not be given custodial sentences.
The judge advised trial judges that first-time, or even second-time, burglars should receive community sentences rather than prison terms if their offences did not involve violence or other aggravating features.
But the comments were condemned by many as being soft on burglary and as offering more protection to the criminal than the victim.
Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, believes Lord Woolf was out of touch. He says: "I can understand totally how it might seem to the public that the law appears to be on the side of the criminal.
"Indeed there are some 105 organisations for the criminal and their families and hardly any supporting the victims of crime."
However, homeowners who do defend themselves and their property are protected under the law, he says. "The law says a person has the right to protect themselves, their family and their property, and can use reasonable force against someone they find in their homes.
"Most burglary victims are not at home at the time of being burgled - however, in the small number of cases when they are, or they interrupt the burglar, the offender will usually try and make an exit. There are actually very few cases when an intruder does not leave.
"In this instance, the householder can use the force they feel is necessary to defend themselves, and in some cases, though very occasionally, a burglar may die.
"In such circumstances I don't believe there are any juries that would convict the householder, if indeed the case got that far."
Brennan says he does still have faith in the system that householders can protect themselves and use the force they believe is necessary and reasonable.
But his faith is not shared by everyone. Among the doubters is Conservative MP Henry Bellingham, whose constituents include Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting a burglar.
The MP for North-West Norfolk says the interpretation of "reasonable force" is varied and inconsistent.
"The law clearly states that one can use reasonable force, but recent cases have resulted in total confusion," he says.
"Tony Martin fired at someone who was facing away from him and shot him in the back. A man was recently convicted for repeatedly stabbing a burglar who had broken into the flat where he believed his children were sleeping.
"However, when a householder stabbed to death one intruder and seriously wounded another, the Crown Prosecution Service found that the force used was reasonable and did not prosecute."
Bellingham argues it cannot be right to prosecute people when the law is confused and contradictory and asks: "If lawyers, safe in their offices, cannot work out what is right, how can the householder be expected to weigh up the pros and cons in the middle of a violent struggle in the dark?
"Is it reasonable to expect that same householder, during a few fearful seconds on the stairs when he is being menaced by broken bottles, to guess what the law would say when lawyers themselves do not know?"
While he would not support new, over-prescriptive laws and would certainly seek to avoid a firearms free-for-all, the MP wants to see a more sympathetic approach towards householders who defend themselves.
"There needs to be a presumption in favour of their innocence rather than the other way round, which appears to be the case at present," he contends.
"I am not suggesting that the Government should immediately change the law, but we should have a report from the Law Commission.
"It should be tasked with examining whether we need a new law whereby the relevant test is not based on the "reasonable man" but a new, subjective test of what the householder believes to be appropriate at the time.
"That would allow for the fact that every case is different and every set of circumstances unique.
"As a result, householders would not be prosecuted unless they were launching revenge attacks on burglars.
"I am not advocating American-style laws with people being shot for trespassing into gardens to retrieve footballs.
"However, homeowners and householders need to know that they can defend themselves.
"That would send a clear message to members of the criminal fraternity that if they enter other people's property, they do so at their peril."
Belfast News Letter
January 21, 2003, Tuesday
SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 18
LENGTH: 1108 words
HEADLINE: WHEN A BURGLAR PUTS YOU ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW...
HIGHLIGHT:
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: many victims of crime find themselves being prosecuted after attacking an intruder in their home; JAILED: Norfolk farmer Tony Martin who shot dead an intruder
BODY:
You regard yourself as a right-thinking, law-abiding member of society - unlike the common criminal who has broken into your home. Yet when you attack them in self-defence, it's you who is up in court over assault charges. RACHAEL CROFTS finds out exactly who the law protects
IT'S dark, you're sleeping soundly in bed, and then suddenly you're awakened by a noise downstairs. There's an intruder in your home, the one place where you and your family ought to be safe. What do you do? Gripped by fear, it's hard to think rationally, but the actions you take now could have very serious consequences. You may have the moral high ground, but do you have the protection of the law?
Footballer Duncan Ferguson has twice been burgled, and twice he has tackled the offenders - risking the threat of prosecution in the process.
Just days ago the Scottish player was quizzed by police after a burglar he restrained in his home in Formby, Merseyside, made a complaint of assault against him.
Police officers interviewed the 32-year-old Everton player, known to fans as "Big Dunc", but eventually decided that he acted reasonably to protect his wife and young daughter.
Merseyside Police's Assistant Chief Constable Ian McPherson explains: "Mr Ferguson was in the security of his home with his wife and child when this happened.
"He did not invite the man into his home and he was put in a position where he felt the need to protect his family. There is no evidence to suggest that he acted unreasonably."
The offender had already admitted intent to steal from the player when he appeared at a magistrates court, but, in accordance with the law, the police were obliged to investigate his complaint against Ferguson.
The break-in came two years and a day after the Scottish star tackled two burglars at his former home in Rufford, Lancs.
That struggle left one of the offenders needing hospital treatment and both were jailed for 15 months in April 2001.
Although the player faced no further action in either case, it didn't stop him being questioned by police bound by the law to investigate all allegations, including those of criminals.
Burglary has been in the spotlight after the Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Woolf, sparked outrage when he recommended that some burglars should not be given custodial sentences.
The judge advised trial judges that first-time, or even second-time, burglars should receive community sentences rather than prison terms if their offences did not involve violence or other aggravating features.
But the comments were condemned by many as being soft on burglary and as offering more protection to the criminal than the victim.
Norman Brennan, of the Victims of Crime Trust, believes Lord Woolf was out of touch. He says: "I can understand totally how it might seem to the public that the law appears to be on the side of the criminal.
"Indeed there are some 105 organisations for the criminal and their families and hardly any supporting the victims of crime."
However, homeowners who do defend themselves and their property are protected under the law, he says. "The law says a person has the right to protect themselves, their family and their property, and can use reasonable force against someone they find in their homes.
"Most burglary victims are not at home at the time of being burgled - however, in the small number of cases when they are, or they interrupt the burglar, the offender will usually try and make an exit. There are actually very few cases when an intruder does not leave.
"In this instance, the householder can use the force they feel is necessary to defend themselves, and in some cases, though very occasionally, a burglar may die.
"In such circumstances I don't believe there are any juries that would convict the householder, if indeed the case got that far."
Brennan says he does still have faith in the system that householders can protect themselves and use the force they believe is necessary and reasonable.
But his faith is not shared by everyone. Among the doubters is Conservative MP Henry Bellingham, whose constituents include Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting a burglar.
The MP for North-West Norfolk says the interpretation of "reasonable force" is varied and inconsistent.
"The law clearly states that one can use reasonable force, but recent cases have resulted in total confusion," he says.
"Tony Martin fired at someone who was facing away from him and shot him in the back. A man was recently convicted for repeatedly stabbing a burglar who had broken into the flat where he believed his children were sleeping.
"However, when a householder stabbed to death one intruder and seriously wounded another, the Crown Prosecution Service found that the force used was reasonable and did not prosecute."
Bellingham argues it cannot be right to prosecute people when the law is confused and contradictory and asks: "If lawyers, safe in their offices, cannot work out what is right, how can the householder be expected to weigh up the pros and cons in the middle of a violent struggle in the dark?
"Is it reasonable to expect that same householder, during a few fearful seconds on the stairs when he is being menaced by broken bottles, to guess what the law would say when lawyers themselves do not know?"
While he would not support new, over-prescriptive laws and would certainly seek to avoid a firearms free-for-all, the MP wants to see a more sympathetic approach towards householders who defend themselves.
"There needs to be a presumption in favour of their innocence rather than the other way round, which appears to be the case at present," he contends.
"I am not suggesting that the Government should immediately change the law, but we should have a report from the Law Commission.
"It should be tasked with examining whether we need a new law whereby the relevant test is not based on the "reasonable man" but a new, subjective test of what the householder believes to be appropriate at the time.
"That would allow for the fact that every case is different and every set of circumstances unique.
"As a result, householders would not be prosecuted unless they were launching revenge attacks on burglars.
"I am not advocating American-style laws with people being shot for trespassing into gardens to retrieve footballs.
"However, homeowners and householders need to know that they can defend themselves.
"That would send a clear message to members of the criminal fraternity that if they enter other people's property, they do so at their peril."
