[..]
Some of the advice on here is shocking, you couldn't whack a burgler over the head just for breaking into your house, that's not self-defence. Obviously if they came at you, or tried to attack you, then yes that would be reasonable self-defence.
They have broken into your house, which means they are an immediate threat to you. As you are under threat, you have a right to use reasonable force in defence and you're not required to make precisely accurate judgements about the minimum force required.
If I was on a jury for a person charged with some form of assault for doing what you describe, I would return a not guilty verdict. I would also be extremely surprised that it was in court at all since the person was acting legally. There is ample precedent, including cases in which the intruder was
unintentionally killed as a result. The last time any such case went to court was when the person at home shot someone through a window before that person had broken in, killing them. They were acquitted on the grounds of reasonable force because the about-to-be-an-intruder was intending to kill them. The UK has very strong defence laws based on the idea of reasonable force and I think that is how it should be.
There was the classic story of "self-defence" a good few years ago, where someone had broken into a house and when confronted he legged it out as fast as he could, the guy shot him in the back as he was running across his front garden. Can't remember if he died, but the guy was obviously found guilty of the act, and couldn't plead self-defence.
You're probably thinking of Tony Martin, who still got off very lightly for premeditated murder and leaving someone to bleed to death while he had a cup of tea.
There's a great deal of difference between using reasonable force to stop a person who is an immediate threat and deliberately killing someone who is not an immediate threat.
