CRIME

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
 

When Robert Franks noticed two teenagers stealing from a shop, his instinct was to stop them. Mr Franks grabbed hold of one boy, while his wife Julia called the security guard, thinking he would take over. But they thought wrong. Instead of detaining the culprits, the guard told Mr Franks to let go of the youngster. It wasn't in his job description to apprehend shoplifters, he said. And besides, he was busy guarding the lavatories.

Jerry Stampfer, manager at the Dolphin Centre, said security staff were "not employed to prevent shoplifting" but to "protect the health and safety of the public". The guard could have intervened only had he witnessed the theft or been invited to act by staff at Wilkinsons, he explained. Had the guard detained someone after being asked to by a member of the public, he could have been liable for arrest for assault, Mr Stampfer added.

He said, "The security guards' primary function is to look after the health, safety and welfare of the customers and staff within the centre. There was an incident in the public toilets at the time and, if the guard left, it would have put the public's health and safety at risk. Intercepting shoplifters is the job of the staff within the stores. However, if shop staff were to phone our guards and personally invite them into the store then they are allowed to assist." (Source: Daily Mail, Jul/07)

A proposal to give householders greater rights to forcibly tackle burglars has been blocked by the government. Conservative MP Roger Gale wanted legal protection for people who believed they had acted in reasonable self defence against intruders but his Criminal Justice (Justifiable Conduct) Bill failed to make further progress in the House of Commons.

Home Office Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, said that it would have created a "spiral of violence and retaliation". The proposal to allow householders the right to take unlimited action in defence of their homes followed a poll of BBC Radio 4 Today programme listeners, which found support for a "Tony Martin" law.

Mr Gale told MPs that his private member's bill addressed the "perception that the criminal justice system has moved towards treating the criminal as the victim". And he argued that the only person who could say what represented reasonable self-defence was the person under threat from an intruder, and that the householder should be given the benefit of the doubt.

His proposals would have protected householders from prosecution if they felt they had been forced to use violent means to protect themselves. Rejecting the tag that this was "Tony Martin's Law", Mr Gale said the proposals reflected public opinion. "I defy any MP to say hand on heart that people do not feel that the criminals have a better deal than the victims."

The measures put forward by the Thanet North MP would have allowed householders to determine what was a reasonable response. "If I am upstairs and I hear somebody breaking into my home downstairs... I believe I have the right to protect myself by whatever means comes to hand so long as I believe that at the time I am doing what is necessary," said Mr Gale. "That is my belief and the court cannot determine it. They do not know the fear that is in my belly at the time."

Supporting the measures, Conservative MP John Hayes, said that there was an urgent need to restore "popular faith in the rule of law". But the proposals were rejected by Ms Mactaggart said that it was a "step too far" which would be a "licence to kill with impunity". The minister said that the concerns over crime were taken very seriously, but that adopting a "might is right" approach was not the right response.

She said that it was for a jury to decide whether a threatened householder's actions were reasonable, and that giving complete immunity to any action was unacceptable. Mr Gale had been spurred on to introduce his Bill after Today listeners were invited to vote on the private members' bill they would most want to see become law.

More than 26,000 votes were registered by listeners taking part in the poll and MP Stephen Pound was lined up to champion the winning bill. But after listeners plumped for legislation that would protect homeowners' rights to defend themselves, the Labour politician appeared to withdraw his support, arguing, "This bill is unworkable," as it "endorses the slaughter of 16-year-old kids".

Mr Pound attacked the proposals as a "knee-jerk" reaction which would create more problems than it would solve. He said such a wide interpretation of self defence would mean the "law enforcement of Dodge City". Broxtowe MP, Nick Palmer, said that the proposals were a "licence for madmen" which could see youngsters being shot for trying to get their footballs back from their neighbour's garden.

See also: Burglars

Graham Goodall, of Middleton-by-Youlgreave, refused to remove his collection of 49 East German Trabant cars from his land. He was found guilty of failing to comply with an enforcement notice issued by the Peak District National Park Authority and fined £750. Mr Goodall, who faced a fine of up to £20,000 for breaching the notice, served under the Town and Country Planning Act, told a district judge at North East Derbyshire Magistrates Court that he was in Germany at the time the enforcement notice was served. Authority officials claimed that following complaints from residents they had no choice but to act to prevent "harm to the character and amenity of the area". Mr Goodall was also ordered to pay £250 costs. It would have cost him less if he'd gone out and mugged someone.

Banned motorist Paul Taylor, was uninsured and twice the drink-drive limit when he smashed into a car carrying a mum and her two teenage children. He ran away from the scene thinking he had killed them. He had three earlier drink-drive convictions, nine for stealing or taking vehicles and 16 for driving uninsured. Judge John Crocker said, "It's one of the worst cases I've seen." Taylor was jailed for 20 months and received a four-year ban. (Source: Daily Mirror, Mar/06)

Shoplifters and other criminals are to escape without any punishment if they say sorry for their crimes, but parents of young children who drop litter face £50 fines under Government plans. John Reid is considering a dramatic downgrading of 25 crimes currently punishable by at least an on-the-spot fine, including theft, criminal damage, wasting police time and hoax calls to the fire service. Offenders who are prepared to apologise and repair the damage they caused would instead be let-off without even so much as an informal warning.

Police, who would supervise the apology, could then class the crime as being solved. It raises the bizarre prospect of a shoplifter being allowed to walk free if they return stolen goods, valued at up to £200, to the store and say sorry. Yobs who get drunk and kick down a pensioner's fence would simply have to mend the damage. But, in stark contrast, parents would be hammered by a separate set of changes proposed by the Home Secretary. These would make them instantly liable, for the first time, for fines given to 10-15 year-olds who drop litter, allow a family pet to foul the pavement or daub graffiti on walls. (Source: Mail on Sunday, Nov/06)