BURGLARS

Page 1 | 2 | 3
 

Householders can attack and even kill intruders in defence of their home. People risk prosecution only if they step over the line to retribution or revenge or set a trap to hurt or kill an intruder. The “licence to kill” guidelines, where people do what they “honestly and instinctively believe is necessary”, have been drawn up to reassure the public over the force they can use when facing intruders. Ken Macdonald, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said people can use objects as weapons, such as a bat, knife or gun.

He added that almost any level of violence against a burglar could be acceptable in the right situation. The guidelines leaflet from the Crown Prosecution Service and Acpo aims to end confusion over the point at which defending one’s family and property becomes a crime. It says that even using items as weapons would not lead to prosecution if householders were doing what they “honestly and instinctively” believed was necessary “in the heat of the moment”.

The leaflet states, “You are not expected to make fine judgments 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. If you have acted in reasonable self defence, and the intruder dies, you will still have acted lawfully”.

It also points out that householders do not have to wait to be attacked before they use violence themselves adding, ”However, if people cross the line into revenge, retribution or setting a deliberate trap, they can still face the courts. Chris Fox, the Acpo president, said officers would have to be satisfied that ”reasonable force” had not been overstepped. He said, “There has to be a line, but that line is quite a long way towards the householder. People will be questioned about what happened. There is going to be statement-taking and interviewing.”

Mr Macdonald said, “The law is on the side of householders. Even where householders have badly injured or even killed burglars, the CPS has declined to prosecute unless they have used wholly excessive force. My impression is that people were beginning to believe that we routinely prosecute householders who have protected themselves against burglars. That is completely untrue.”

He said almost any level of violence against a burglar could be acceptable in the right situation, and added, “The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn’t stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor. This is something the intruder brings on him or herself. I don’t think we need to be too squeamish about the situation.”

There have been examples of householders not being prosecuted after intruders had been fatally stabbed or shot, or hit over the head with bats or metal bars, he added. Mr Macdonald said that the CPS had brought only 11 prosecutions against householders in 15 years, including one in which a burglar was tied up, thrown into a pit and set alight.

He also made clear that, having been the victim of many burglaries, including four in one year at an East London home, he would not hesitate to incapacitate a burglar. Once he, his wife and children had been sleeping. If he had encountered a man or two men in his kitchen, he said, he would have used force. (Source: Times Online, Feb/05)

Only eleven householders have been prosecuted for attacking intruders in the past 15 years, Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said. Mr Macdonald said the low total, which included only seven domestic burglaries, proved existing laws give the public adequate protection to defend their property. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has come under fire from the Tories for ruling out a change in legislation to allow people to use extreme force against intruders. The opposition has argued that the law is biased against homeowners, a view overwhelmingly supported in opinion polls.

But Mr Macdonald said an informal trawl of Crown Prosecution Service files had shown prosecutions for attacks on burglars were extremely rare. He said, "The law is on the side of householders. Those who attack intruders will only be prosecuted if they use very excessive force." The most well-known of the 11 prosecutions was that of the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who was jailed for murder, later reduced to manslaughter, after he shot dead a fleeing teenage burglar. They also included a householder in Manchester who left a burglar with brain damage after hitting him several times with a shovel.

The CPS also listed several cases in which no prosecution was brought over that period. A robber died after being stabbed by a newsagent in Manchester, but the CPS did not bring him to court and prosecuted the surviving robber, who was jailed for six years. Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP who has tabled a Bill to allow householders to use all but "grossly disproportionate" violence against intruders, said, "What about those who have stood trembling in indignation and horror, fearing what the law would do to them if they were to tackle the person who was violating their home? I challenge Mr Clarke to publish the names of these people, the silent majority." (Source: The Independent)

Jimmy ‘Fingers’ Norton, veteran cockney rogue and former chairman of the National Burglars Association of Great Britain has criticised young burglars for their poor dress sense. According to Norton, this is undermining the image of the profession with potentially devastating consequences. He said, "I was just appalled when I saw CCTV film of two young blokes breaking into a warehouse on Crimewatch last week. No cloth cap, no comedy mask, no crowbar and no sack at all, never mind one marked ‘Swag’. What’s the world coming to?"

In the 1970s, according to Norton, professionals from all walks of life wore their uniforms with pride. He said, "Policemen had a helmet, teachers always had a gown and a mortar board and carried a cane, burglars wore red and black hooped jumpers, everyone knew where they stood." Norton conceded that many people who have lost their life savings and most treasured possessions to a robbery may regard the sartorial standards of the thieves as a relatively minor issue.

However, he believes that they are missing the most important point. He added, "This used to be a trade that was passed down from father to son. There was pride involved. Do away with all that tradition and you’ll find greedy callous sociopaths opting for careers in investment banking instead. Trust me, you don’t want that." (Source: News Biscuit, Mar/10)

<<< Prev