High Court: Homeowners can use 'disproportionate force' against burglars

Pawnless Endgame said:
It's about time!!
Click to expand...

It's not a change!

Seriously, it isn't a change. There was (and still is and no doubt will continue to be) a habit of lying about the law in the media in order to make people scared, angry and nationalistic, but that's not reality. As far as I know, there has never been a time in the existence of the UK during which people were not allowed to use reasonable force in defence and with a lot of latitude regarding what is reasonable when attacked and especially in your own howm. Medieval English law allowed it. I'm pretty sure that Anglo-Saxon law allowed it as well.

The only people who object to the limits of the law are those who fantasise about torturing people to death and want to do it without any fear of being prosecuted for doing so. These are not people that a civilised society should want to pander to.
 
flynlr said:
Congrats.! good to hear that some common sense is still there in the old country.
.
this sits next to my bed ....
I do not consider it disproportionate. maybe if I reload then it is.
.
it's only 5.56MMx45 if I had the 300 Blackout version that would maybe be
disproportionate. :)
...
Click to expand...

Nice, wish we were allowed those here :( Couldn't you have propped it up against something a bit more manly than quilted toilet tissue though? ;)
 
What a missleading title, and look at all the keyboard worriers jumping to the wrong conclusion.

How is killing someone needlessly and getting sent to prison protecting your family. :rolleyes: it's ******* them over and putting them in a terrible position, including financial.
 
Glaucus said:
What a missleading title, and look at all the keyboard worriers jumping to the wrong conclusion.

How is killing someone needlessly and getting sent to prison protecting your family. :rolleyes: it's ******* them over and putting them in a terrible position, including financial.
Click to expand...
It's not about that.

Killing an intruder in your home might or might not be necessary, justified or illegal. It all depends on circumstances. There have been several cases in recent years where burglars have been killed and householders not even prosecuted, because that level of violence was held to be reasonable. But there have also been cases that were prosecuted, and convictions resulted.

For instance, if you lay in wait for a burglar, let them walk past you, jump out behind them and slit their throat or blast them with a shotgun, prosecution is likely. If you knock an intruder unconscious, then grab a kitchin knife and repeatedly stab them, prosecution is likely.

On the other hand, if you use a shotgun to kill an intruder that is actively threatening a member of your householder with a knife, then prosecution is unlikely, and indeed, did not happen in exactly that situation.
 
I know exactly what it is, now go read the thread and peoples replies, where they would be far above appropriate use and likely end up in jail.
 
Aldav said:
Actually, you're wrong there. The law has changed. The problem is it's changed in very nuanced way, and certainly is not the clarification Grayling claimed.

You are correct in that it has always been permissible to use reasonable force, if you honestly believed it to be reasonable, provided it was not subsequently deemed disproportionate. Now, you can use force you honestly believe reasonable even if a subsequent review deems it disproportionate .... but not if it's grossly disproportionate.
Click to expand...

There have already been rulings that the reasonableness of force does not require exact proportionality (Cross V Kirkby 2000 and Oatridge (1991)). Perhaps this ruling makes that a little more explicit, but it's far from new thinking.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
There have already been rulings that the reasonableness of force does not require exact proportionality (Cross V Kirkby 2000 and Oatridge (1991)). Perhaps this ruling makes that a little more explicit, but it's far from new thinking.
Click to expand...

I didn't know the exact cases, but remembered reading a long time ago about the number of times householders who killed intruders and got prosecuted for it.
From memory the number of prosecutions is small, the number of times the householder was found guilty was tiny, juries are loathe to convict unless it's extremely obvious that the force was massively over the top and completely out of proportion to the risk.

I can only think of Tony Martin (traps, shotgun to the back, boasted about wanting to kill "******" and didn't inform the police until the next day*), and that guy who got his friends and family together and went hunting for the intruders and murdered him in the street, in front of loads of witnesses who were begging them to stop as examples of people being found guilty in relation to killing intruders in recent years.

Kenneth Noye got away with murdering a police surveillance officer back in the 90's because he claimed self defence (after going outside of the safety of his property to stab the person who was in his garden). It didn't work for him the second time he claimed self defence after killing a motorist who had annoyed him.

People tend to think of the number of times someone is arrested after the intruder is found dead without thinking of the reasons that happens, and equate that to them being found guilty or something, as opposed to it being a case of the police doing their job and (quite rightly) not just taking someone's word that the dead body in the kitchen with a dozen stab wounds was a intruder who had gone for them.


*I think they reckoned that if he'd informed the police his victim would likely have lived as medical attention would have made a big difference.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
There have already been rulings that the reasonableness of force does not require exact proportionality (Cross V Kirkby 2000 and Oatridge (1991)). Perhaps this ruling makes that a little more explicit, but it's far from new thinking.
Click to expand...

Have the CPS updated the guidelines for trying to prosecute a home-owner who has used possibly disproportionate force, but could have been considered reasonable at the time? I really feel sorry for anyone who has been charged for murder when protecting their home and family despite later being cleared by a jury. The whole thing can really change their life for the worse.
 
Trifid said:
Have the CPS updated the guidelines for trying to prosecute a home-owner who has used possibly disproportionate force, but could have been considered reasonable at the time? I really feel sorry for anyone who has been charged for murder when protecting their home and family despite later being cleared by a jury. The whole thing can really change their life for the worse.
Click to expand...

The CPS constantly review their charging advice when rulings such as these come out. With that said, these sorts of cases are incredibly rare.
 
Whilst I think the ruling is good in this case, as in, common sense prevailed, I'm concerned that the "having a right to use 'disproportionate force'" statement may skew things if people take it too literally. I also worry that it may mean that robbers may come in armed, or ready to fight?

I guess it depends on the risk, aggravated burglary is a tougher sentence if caught so it might put the crooks off, but at the same time, intimidating home owners with even a replica gun or even a non-shard katana or whatever is going to be rather traumatic for most - or it could mean that home owners are more likely to do something drastic.

I'm not defending the crooks, frankly, if you break into someone's house and break the law you should accept the punishment, but I think the punishment shouldn't be fear of receiving a life altering injury - but a proper jail sentence.

If they assault you, then of course defend yourself as hard as you can. However attacking a crook makes me feel a little uncomfortable.
 
Freefaller said:
Whilst I think the ruling is good in this case, as in, common sense prevailed, I'm concerned that the "having a right to use 'disproportionate force'" statement may skew things if people take it too literally.
Click to expand...

It's a really good point. Although the force may be disproportionate, it must still be reasonable in the circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom