Businessman facing life imprisonment for tackling burglars

scorza · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:43

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...attacking-and-detaining-pair-of-burglars.html

A businessman who attacked two burglars he caught red-handed in a night-time raid was arrested himself for defending his property, a court heard.

Landscape gardener Andrew Woodhouse, 44, was on trial facing assault charges on the two raiders he found stealing diesel from his business.

A jury heard how Woodhouse grabbed a fence post one was carrying as a weapon and used it to fight back against them.

The father-of-five - who says he has repeatedly been a victim of crime at his gardening company - detained the two burglars until police arrived.

But the court was told it was Woodhouse who was then arrested and accused of using excessive force.

The burglars got a £75 fine each for their crime. Makes my blood boil when I read cases like this. The law is supposed to be there to protect hardworking people like Mr Woodhouse, not criminal junkie scumbags. Here is the official CPS guidance on the use of reasonable force:

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

And yet they prosecute anyway - why?

Dolph · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:54

I suspect breaking the arms and legs of the one of the criminals by beating them with a fence post is probably the reason...

[TW]Fox · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:55

Presumably it's up to a court to decide whether the force was appropriate or not.

Hyburnate · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:55

It is incredibly unlikely he'll get life. It depends on how injured they are but also there are two charges, baring in mind also that majority of judges aren't handing out life sentences because they're following EU wishes. You've also got to take into account that he had reasoning which will reduce the sentence and also if he pleads guilty that'll reduce it too. If they were only minor injuries he'll be looking around 7-8 years but even that might not need to be fully done.

I agree though, it's absolutely ridiculous our self-defence laws are stupid.

Freefaller · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:55

So he was weaponless, grabbed the fence post that one of the crooks had, and suddenly he is prosecuted for assault? The crooks were effectively "armed".

There must be more to this else this is just perverse, he must have beaten the guys up quite badly - not that I condone violence, but play with fire get burned surely?

MrMoonX · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:56

Dolph said:
I suspect breaking the arms and legs of the one of the criminals by beating them with a fence post is probably the reason...

This!

He's not gonna get life, your title is sensationalist ****

Dolph · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:57

Just an additon to my post, the injuries were inflicted off his premises after he had chased the criminals down. If you have to catch them when they are running away, it is rather unlikely to be self defence...

Hyburnate · 23 Jan 2014 at 07:58

MrMoonX said:
This!

He's not gonna get life, your title is sensationalist ****

Indeed, life isn't even in the CPS Guidelines so it's just there in the laws for extreme circumstances (I assume)

scorza · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:00

Hyburnate said:
It is incredibly unlikely he'll get life. It depends on how injured they are but also there are two charges, baring in mind also that majority of judges aren't handing out life sentences because they're following EU wishes. You've also got to take into account that he had reasoning which will reduce the sentence and also if he pleads guilty that'll reduce it too. If they were only minor injuries he'll be looking around 7-8 years but even that might not need to be fully done.

I agree though, it's absolutely ridiculous our self-defence laws are stupid.

I dunno, if he's unlucky and gets an ultra-liberal jury and found guilty he could be seen as vigilante. Judges traditionally take a very dim view of vigilantism (and anything else that threatens the establishment) and accordingly will deal harsher sentences.

Freefaller · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:02

Dolph said:
Just an additon to my post, the injuries were inflicted off his premises after he had chased the criminals down. If you have to catch them when they are running away, it is rather unlikely to be self defence...

Whilst you're "right" - it's still absolutely pathetic. They wouldn't have been caught were it not for him.

I still see him as a victim - I accept and agree that excessive violence is not required, however, we don't know the details, the guy could have had a freak break, and they could just be small fractures - he wouldn't have had time to beat up the guy if he went off to rugby tackle the other thief. And heck, you take your chances you suffer the consequences.

I'm not saying the law should be changed to allow people to beat up crooks just for blood lust, but this is a case where the law has skewed far too far in the other direction.

He shouldn't even step foot in a prison, the other 2 should however.

Hyburnate · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:04

scorza said:
I dunno, if he's unlucky and gets an ultra-liberal jury and found guilty he could be seen as vigilante. Judges traditionally take a very dim view of vigilantism (and anything else that threatens the establishment) and accordingly will deal harsher sentences.

Tis true, just looking at some precedents and it seems that he might actually get a longer sentence...

e; This is a GBH charge and is an interesting read. http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-jenkins-2012-ewca-crim-1703 And that's not even self defence.

Dolph · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:05

But the above is why it needs go to to court for the full facts to be heard in line with the judicial process in this country.

The Geezer · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:07

I'm guessing this is one of the reasons why he was charged, "Married Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon, near Abergavenny, when a burglar alarm went off at the tyre yard where he runs his business at about 12.30am.

He drove to the premises where he disturbed two men stealing stealing diesel from his machinery."

There is no mention of him calling the police in the article so I am presuming he was out for revenge given he has been burgled before. The law can be ambiguous regarding property and defence but driving to an alternate location and fronting the criminals is a no no.

He got arrested due to process and procedure however I am guessing he got charged for the reasons stated above together with breaking limbs.

There is a risk that the criminals could sue him for pain and suffering - now that's criminal !

Zethor · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:09

He chased a 53 year old man, caught him and then proceeded to break three (!) of his limbs. The man is still in crutches one year later!

This wasn't self defense, Mr. Woodhouse deserves to be punished, burglaras are people too and they are protected by the law in the same way he is.

Hyburnate · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:09

The Geezer said:
I'm guessing this is one of the reasons why he was charged, "Married Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon, near Abergavenny, when a burglar alarm went off at the tyre yard where he runs his business at about 12.30am.

He drove to the premises where he disturbed two men stealing stealing diesel from his machinery."

There is no mention of him calling the police in the article so I am presuming he was out for revenge given he has been burgled before. The law can be ambiguous regarding property and defence but driving to an alternate location and fronting the criminals is a no no.

He got arrested due to process and procedure however I am guessing he got charged for the reasons stated above. He got off, so no issue.

There is a risk that the criminals could sue him for pain and suffering - now that's criminal !

Yeah with that little story it's looking more like intent than self defence in which case he'll be looking at a much greater sentence.

If I remember I'll be sure to keep an eye on this case and read the transcripts when they're released

e; From my understanding this gives a major injury and it was out of revenge so he had no real reasoning, he's going to get the book thrown at him

Freefaller · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:09

Dolph said:
But the above is why it needs go to to court for the full facts to be heard in line with the judicial process in this country.

Of course, you're right. However, I know it is just a sensationalist article, and justice needs to be done, however I cannot fathom why the guys are effectively getting off "scott free" by a tiny fine, irrespective of what the victim did (and I still hold he is the victim) they should still have the law applied as hard as possible to them.

Freefaller · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:10

Zethor said:
He chased a 53 year old man, caught him and then proceeded to break three (!) of his limbs. The man is still in crutches one year later!

This wasn't self defense, Mr. Woodhouse deserves to be punishment, burglaras are people too and they are protected by the law in the same way he is.

I agree that excessive violence is not acceptable, but I'm afraid if you choose a life of crime you're effectively giving the finger to your rights and society.

scorza · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:12

The Geezer said:
I'm guessing this is one of the reasons why he was charged, "Married Woodhouse was in bed with his wife Lisa at their detached home in the village of Govilon, near Abergavenny, when a burglar alarm went off at the tyre yard where he runs his business at about 12.30am.

He drove to the premises where he disturbed two men stealing stealing diesel from his machinery."

There is no mention of him calling the police in the article so I am presuming he was out for revenge given he has been burgled before. The law can be ambiguous regarding property and defence but driving to an alternate location and fronting the criminals is a no no.

He got arrested due to process and procedure however I am guessing he got charged for the reasons stated above together with breaking limbs.

There is a risk that the criminals could sue him for pain and suffering - now that's criminal !

There's no requirement to call the police if a burglar alarm goes off - it could be a false alarm.

Zethor · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:14

Freefaller said:
Whilst you're "right" - it's still absolutely pathetic. They wouldn't have been caught were it not for him.

I still see him as a victim - I accept and agree that excessive violence is not required, however, we don't know the details, the guy could have had a freak break, and they could just be small fractures - he wouldn't have had time to beat up the guy if he went off to rugby tackle the other thief. And heck, you take your chances you suffer the consequences.

I'm not saying the law should be changed to allow people to beat up crooks just for blood lust, but this is a case where the law has skewed far too far in the other direction.

He shouldn't even step foot in a prison, the other 2 should however.

One of the burglars is still in crutches 10 months later, they were not small fractures. Anyone who is capable of such levels of violence should be in prison, no excuse. I'd rather have thieves running around freely than raging lunatics capable of such assaults.

I agree that excessive violence is not acceptable, but I'm afraid if you choose a life of crime you're effectively giving the finger to your rights and society.

I don't agree. Society should protect the rights of everyone, including those who choose a life of crime.

randomshenans · 23 Jan 2014 at 08:18

I'd have done it. BREAK ALL LIMBS!