Tories' codswallop on intruders
photo credit: Johnny Grim
There must be an election coming up. You can measure the bovine scatology being talked about householders and intruders by the yard. Question Time last night was in danger of being inundated by the stuff. “Historian” (Cue: gravespinning by A.L.Rowse and his like) Andrew Roberts was in particular danger of asphyxiating on his own output (He held up the Mylene Klass knife waving episode as an example of the absurdity of the law. Give me strength. Marina Hyde has very clearly outlined how that whole thing was a PR stunt by Klass).
Let’s be clear here. Munir Hussain was courageous in chasing burglars out of his house. But a jury – yes a jury of ordinary men and women – found him guilty of grievous bodily harm because he chased the burglar into the street and hit him repeatedly so hard with a cricket bat that it broke in three places (just try breaking a criket bat and see how far you get – they are robust, believe me). He deserved the suspended sentence he has belatedly been given by the Lord Chief Justice.
The law allows “reasonable force” to be used by householders, outlined here in elaborate detail by the Crown Prosecution Service. There was a lot of talk on Question Time last night about the word “reasonable” not being clear.
Codswallop. Claptrap. Hogwash. Tiddlyfart.
“Reasonable” is the most clearly defined and well established term in English law. Juries know instinctively what it means after a few moment’s explanation.
And now we come to the Conservative position as spelt out by Caroline Spelman on Question Time.
O-H M-Y G-O-O-D-N-E-S-S.
Pass the sickbag, Alice.
Spelman said that the Tories want to change the law so that householders are in the clear as long as they do not use “grossly disproportionate force”. I see. So that means that they can use force that is somewhere between “reasonable” and “grossly disproportionate”. So that means that they can use disproportionate force but they cannot use “grossly disproportionate force”.
It’s worth savouring that. The Tories say that they want householders to be able to use disproportionate force in warding off burglars (as long as it isn’t gross). Disproportionate force is by definition “unreasonable”. So the Tories want people to be able to use unreasonable force to fend off intruders. Unreasonable force. Brilliant. That’s force, as in NOT reasonable.
See what they’ve done there? They’ve turned centuries of the British legal tradition of fair play on its head because there’s an election coming up.
As Wee Jimmy Krankie would say:
TweetF-A-N-D-A-B-I-D-O-Z-I
Related posts:
12 Responses to “Tories' codswallop on intruders”
Leave a Reply
Burbler-in-chief
[...] Liberal Burblings thinks the Conservatives have turned fair play on its [...]
Are you really interested in the ethics of the situation, or was this just a cheap point-scoring tory-bashing post?
I don’t think that I, as someone who has never been mugged or encountered an intruder in my house, can understand the pressures of such a situation, and thus have little right to tell people how they were supposed to react in a highly traumatic and threatening situation they have suddenly been put in through no fault of their own.
What seems reasonable when examined in a court of law, well after the event, and when most facts are known, is very different from what goes through the mind of a person in a situation of great physical peril.
To make progress, we need to leave semantics behind, and define what grossly disproportionate force is.
Personally, I would consider it absolutely justified to kill an intruder who is armed with a lethal weapon, or who is physically in the act or imminently about to commit violence or incapacitate another person.
Grossly disproportionate would be something like overpowering an intruder, tying him up and then proceeding to severely injure him or kill him after he has stopped posing no threat.
Even in the latter category (to which the Munir Hussein case arguably falls), the sentence should be far less severe than if the roles had been reversed, as it is clear grounds of temporarily diminished responsibility.
I agree, break into a house threaten the house hold, I’d say the occupant is fully justified in killing the f*ckin useless bastard(s). All this reasonable is bollux. His response was reasonable. Reasonable is a term that makes lawyers rich. The link you provided did nothing to satisfy me that reasonable is well defined. Or more importantly…appropriate.
You over looked the testimony of the soldier, who as a professional, claimed how hard it is to make those judgements.
For me, breaking and entering with malice is an extreme crime. An extreme crime will inspire an extreme response. Chasing a bloke who has intruded and threatened your family (essentially, a terrorist), and giving him a right kicking (battering) is fully justified and reasonable in my view.
I do agree with you though, that Tory was talking out her arse. It seems the Tories are doing their best to look daft as we approach the election. Their arguments seem often incoherent and irrelevant.
The Labour bloke seemed, for the first time in a long while for a representative of that party, well prepared.
The young Lib Dem gal is definitely growing in confidence and puts her points across really well. I disagreed with her some times, but I think her arguments were well thought out and delivered. She wasn’t afraid of saying what she thinks, even if unpopular and that is very refreshing.
The Tory was..well…a Tory.
Daniel Lindholm: “we need to leave semantics behind, and define what grossly disproportionate force is.”
But surely ‘definining what disproportionate force is’ is itself an exercise in “semantics”, isn’t it?
Let’s separate two things:
1. The clarity or unclarity of the law as it stands.
The law is clear enough for twelve randomly selected ordinary people to reach a clear verdict of “guilty” on the charge of “grievous bodily harm” after hearing all the evidence in the Munir Hussain case. If the law was not clear, they would not have been able to reach a verdict, as they did. If the evidence that Munir Hussain was guilty was not clear, they would have found him “not guilty”. They didn’t.
2. Whether the law allows enough freedom of action to householders
Contrary to your implication, Daniel Lindholm, the law as it currently stands does allow for instances where the intruder dies, as long as the householder acted in self-defence. The CPS site says:
CPS:”What if the intruder dies?
If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted.”
Yes, I am interested in the ethics of the situation, Daniel. My sense of ethics tells me that it is right to act in self-defence and to eject the burglar from one’s home. It is even right to chase them to make a citizen’s arrest or recover property. But it is not right to chase that burglar down the street, with others, and beat the burglar so hard that the weapon used (a cricket bat) breaks in three places and the burglar sustains serious brain injury. That’s not right.
Again, the CPS site is clear on this and allows quite a bit of room for manoevre from the point of view of the householder:
CPS:”What if I chase them as they run off?
This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen’s arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.”
Daniel Lindholm: “What seems reasonable when examined in a court of law, well after the event, and when most facts are known, is very different from what goes through the mind of a person in a situation of great physical peril.”
Well I think, if you read the CPS site, they make clear that the law goes a considerable way to showing sympathy for householders caught in this situation:
CPS: “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 selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.
As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence”
Indeed, they go further:
CPS:”Do I have to wait to be attacked?
No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.”
Daniel Lindholm:”Even in the latter category (to which the Munir Hussein case arguably falls), the sentence should be far less severe than if the roles had been reversed”
Well, in the Munir Hussain the sentence was (eventually when it got to the Lord Chief Justice) far less severe because Munir Hussain has been given , after appeal, a suspended sentence.
BTW, it’s FANDABIDOZI.
Thanks Mike. Many a slip… I did look it up on Google three times and eventually cut and pasted it from Wikipedia, but I must have somehow replaced the B with a D. Sorry. Now corrected.
“Yes, I am interested in the ethics of the situation, Daniel. My sense of ethics tells me that it is right to act in self-defence and to eject the burglar from one’s home. It is even right to chase them to make a citizen’s arrest or recover property. But it is not right to chase that burglar down the street, with others, and beat the burglar so hard that the weapon used (a cricket bat) breaks in three places and the burglar sustains serious brain injury. That’s not right.”
But this wasn’t ‘just’ a burglar. He was a part of a small gang, who were armed and threatened the victims lives. The Cricket bat breaking in three places, so what. Use it like you mean it. It is quite possible that the bat hit the floor when it broke.
“three intruders wearing balaclavas in their home. Hussain was told that he would be killed. His family’s hands were tied behind their backs”
I could not give a flying fart what happened to the (serial) intruder under these circumstances. All bets are off. I will say though, had the intruders scarpered as soon as they had been rumbled, then I just might concede Mr Hussain went behind the pail.
Sure Mr Hussain did inflict grievous bodily harm, but with massive provocation and mitigation in my view.
All that being said, I see no advantage in changing the law, as the Labour bloke said on QT, the law followed due process. I do think it regrettable, however, that Mr Hussain is still considered a convicted criminal.
“But this wasn’t ‘just’ a burglar. He was a part of a small gang,”
All the more reason to leave him/them to the police after initialling ejecting them from the house.
“I could not give a flying fart what happened to the (serial) intruder under these circumstances.”
Fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion. My view of living in a civilised society is that there is not a vigilante culture. Justice should be left to the police and the courts. OK, you don’t like that. Fair enough. I just don’t agree with you.
The main point behind this, though, Rusty, is the J-U-R-Y. Yes, the J-U-R-Y. You know, those 12 ordinary men and women who actually listened to ALL the evidence presented in court and saw the people involved at first hand – not just read a report of a few hundred words and listened/watch to media reports?
At the risk of repeating myself, after admittedly wrong sentencing by the original judge, the final sentence of the British justice system on Mr Hussain is a suspended sentence, so the system does recognise the provocation in this case, albeit belatedly.
I think we’re in what’s called violent agreement on the main point, Rusty. You don’t want to change the law, nor do I.
On the Hussain point, if you have a disagreement it is with the jury. They’re the ones who convicted him. Twelve ordinary people. Not media types, or politicians or law professors or judges, but twelve ordinary people.
“The main point behind this, though, Rusty, is the J-U-R-Y. Yes, the J-U-R-Y. You know, those 12 ordinary men and women who actually listened to ALL the evidence presented in court and saw the people involved at first hand – not just read a report of a few hundred words and listened/watch to media reports?”
“three intruders wearing balaclavas in their home. Hussain was told that he would be killed. His family’s hands were tied behind their backs”
Excuse me Paul, but f*ck ‘em. Do that to my family and I would do the same as Hussain without guilt.
(40 minutes after typing…perhaps I would have guilt, but that is just me…but a man shouldn’t be convicted of protecting his family). How can a jury appreciate what it is like. They are being advised by professionals who can ‘persuade’ the jury how they like.
In this singular case I don’t agree. But law shouldn’t be determined by extraordinary cases.
Yes, the edit facility really is useful, especially after those visits to the KC, isn’t it?
I think you’ll find many people have been convicted because they were motivated by “protecting” their family. That’s life, I’m afraid. Perhaps people should bear that in mind before they seek to wreak their own vengeance, thereby taking the law into their own hands. There’s a fine line between “protecting” and “taking vengeance”. A fine line between taking “reasonable” steps in self-defence and taking unreasonable steps which constitute taking the law into one’s own hands.
“How can a jury appreciate what it is like. They are being advised by professionals who can ‘persuade’ the jury how they like.”
That’s nonsense actually. Because although they have the “professionals” on the prosecution “advising/persuading” them to convict, they have the equally persuasive “professionals” on the defence team ‘advising’ them to find ‘not guilty’.
“law shouldn’t be determined by extraordinary cases.” Well cases don’t determine the law in the first place – statutes of parliament do. But non-binding guidance is given via precedent, yes. But it all comes back to the jury. Out of interest, have you ever been on one? I’ve been on a jury for four cases (including one as foreman) and the experience has greatly enhanced my faith in the jury system.
In any case, if you don’t think juries should judge “extraordinary” cases, as you seem to be saying, what alternative system do you propose?
There’s been a misunderstanding. When I say law shouldn’t be determined by extraordinary cases, I’m talking about the OP, viz, the Tories claiming that they wish to change the law to ‘protect’ the victim. I didn’t mean that extraordinary cases shouldn’t be tried by jury.
I do think there are some fault lines in the justice system.
Burglary is not, in my view, a trivial crime, but the Police treat it as such. It is something that can badly effect peoples lives, sometimes as strong as a bereavement.
The police and government don’t take it seriously enough. I wonder if the jury would have returned a guilty verdict had they known what would happen to Mr Hussain?
The ‘professionals’ point is that Mr Hussain’s ‘crime’ was predetermined. I wonder if it would have produced a different result if the jury were ‘allowed’ to determine the offence, or punishment.
Another thing. There have been cases recently where people who should be up for GBH who ‘got away’ with a caution. This is where in this individual case I stand.
Mr Hussain’s intruder, I understand, continued to perpetrate burglaries. I have doubt his ‘injuries’ were as severe as that portrayed. I also recognise that the incident didn’t put the burglar off.
I suspect what Mr Hussain did was while still under the influence of his primaeval instinct – this is why I look on this differently than, say ,you. Had Mr Hussain done this a week later, then, perhaps, I would have a different view.
Good points. ————–