A Good Start For Charles Clarke

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ardross
  • Start date Start date
A

Ardross

Guest
Intruder law will stay unchanged

The current law allows 'reasonable' force to be used in defence
The law on the amount of force householders can use against burglars will not be changed, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has announced.
A review has concluded the current law, which allows people to use "reasonable force" against intruders, is "sound".

But Mr Clarke says there will be a publicity campaign to ensure people understand they can protect themselves.

The Tories want a change so only those using "grossly disproportionate force" would risk being prosecuted.

That call has been backed by outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens, saying people were uncertain about what was allowed.

Publicity campaign

Mr Clarke's announcement on Wednesday came just ahead of a date being announced for debate on Tory MP Patrick Mercer's private member's bill for changing the law.

The home secretary said: "I have concluded that the current law is sound but needs to be better explained to all concerned, especially for householders."

He said the review, announced by the prime minister last month, had included consultations with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the director of public prosecutions.

A clarification of the law rather than a change will help to reassure the public

Chris Fox
Association of Chief Police Officers

Mr Clarke said the CPS had recently issued guidance on when people should be charged and Acpo was ensuring police officers understood the current law.

Information would shortly be published and advertised to the public so people were clear "that the current law ensures that appropriate steps to protect themselves, their family and their property will always be justified".

Acpo president Chris Fox said that amid "real public concern", it was important everybody knew that police and prosecutors would support people using appropriate force to confront burglars.

He argued: "A clarification of the law rather than a change will help to reassure the public and improve their confidence in the criminal justice system."
 
Well done Charlie. If Blunkett had stayed at the Home Office he would have acceded to the baying of the Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Mail and instituted a domestic shoot-to-kill policy.
 
This has to be a good idea. Having carte blanche to kill intruders is tantamount to legalising murder.
 
There seems to be something missing here..........do you honestly think the robber/burglar is going to use a minimum of force? Come on if he thinks he is going to be detained he is going to fight for his life.............. he may get 10 yrs the next time he is caught having been a persistent burglar all is life…. There will be no Queensbury rules you know………..its each to his own not unless you want to let him get away that is……….. :rolleyes:
 
"A minimum of force" is not mentioned, merlin, only by those newspapers who falsely quoted to suit their case. The word is "reasonable". The Director of Public Prosecutions was interviewed on the radio this evening and was asked: "If a burglar entered my house and I found him in the downstairs room, hit him over the head with my cricket bat and fractured his skull would I be prosecuted?"

The answer was a resounding "No".

He also said that there were very, very few prosecutions of people who attacked burglars and other intruders and that there were even fewer convictions when these came to court.

Next to be interviewed was the Sunday Telegraph journalist who has been writing up the campaign. He said "We have received thousands of letters from people this has happened to". The interviewer said "That's odd, because the DPP said there aren't anything like thousands of cases. How many can you name specifically?".

His answer?

"One."
 
Most burglars, that is 'proper' burglars, if disturbed, would far rather leg it as fast as possible. My friend was burgled (for the third time!) while he was sound asleep, as was I (in a room nearest to the main door, which they'd quietly propped open to make their getaway with the goodies). I've no doubt, given how very quietly and carefully this was done, that had they meant any harm, we could quite easily have been killed in our beds or if we'd disturbed them.

I'd like to think that if I found someone that smart and in command of the situation on my property, I just say 'oh, hey, you need to go now' and let them pass me and exit. I'm just not about to start trying to 'defend' a television being nicked!

And what if someone starts to cut up rough? Especially if, as is most likely, we're taken entirely off-guard or are half-asleep? We're not going to be at our best to defend ourselves anyway. Short of sleeping with a loaded handgun under your pillow, and risking blowing your own head off, most of us would be in no position to hit back effectively.

The extreme case of Tony Martin was due to repeat targetting by burglars, giving Martin the chance to have his shottie at the ready. His mistake was to back-shoot - it's obvious to the police that your target is running AWAY from you, and then you're cooked.
 
Back
Top