Home & self defense in England

[Boonie Stomper]

Two armed (screwdriver) intruders break into a home, homeowner wounds one who later dies. The home owner is up for a murder charge.

The left dreams of a gun-free = crime-free society? I don't think so.

Pensioner held on suspicion of murdering 'burglar' pictured

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Roy W]

I don't believe he has been charged with murder, just arrested for questioning.

Depends how he words things, and the circumstances of the stabbing (i.e. hopefully it wasn't in the back whilst running down the road away from the house) then he could easily walk.

He is still protected by Common Law and Sect 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and now Sect 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, particularly Sect 5a, introduced in 2013

"Subsection (5A) allows householders to use disproportionate force when defending themselves against intruders into the home. The provision came into force on 25 April 2013 and applies to cases where the alleged force was used after that date. The provision does not apply restrospectively. It provides that where the case is one involving a householder (please see the section below for further details) the degree of force used by the householder is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate. A householder will therefore be able to use force which is disproportionate but not grossly disporportionate.

The provision does not give householders free rein to use disproprtionate force in every case they are confronted by an intruder. The provision must be read in conjunction with the other elements of section 76 of the 2008 Act. The level of force used must still be reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believed them to be (section 76(3)).

In deciding whether the force might be regarded as 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportioante' the court will need to consider the individual facts of each case, including the personal circumstances of the householder and the threat (real or perceived) posed by the offender."

Lets hope he has a switched on lawyer!

---------- Post added at 02:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 AM ----------

Further it says

Section 76(7) sets out two considerations that should be taken into account when deciding whether the force used was reasonable. Both are adopted from existing case law. They are:
•that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;
•that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

This section adopts almost precisely the words of Lord Morris in (Palmer v R [1971] AC 814) which emphasise the difficulties often facing someone confronted by an intruder or defending himself against attack:


"If there has been an attack so that defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken..."

The key part being 'a moment of unexpected anguish'

[30Three]

Reading the news report; it appears that the burglars colleague may have pulled the knife out of the wound. That would surely speed up the blood loss and contribute to the loss of life.
Well done to the pensioner for defending himself. He needs all the support he can get.
I find it illogical and unfortunate that the victim's of crime are often pursued more for defending their property than the criminals for breaking in.

[CINDERS]

There was a case a fair while ago where a house holder was charged (In the US I think) with attempted murder as he stabbed the intruder with a knife unknown if it was a hunting or kitchen knife, the crux of the case came down to weapons the intruder had a baseball bat and the home owner a knife.
It was construed that the knife constituted a more advanced weapon than the baseball bat which gave as above a disproportionate advantage of injury over the bat, does not say that you have to get allot closer to use a knife effectively than a bat.

A case also a fair while ago here in the eastern states where the home owner shot the intruder with a body shot with a 30/06 apparently the owner was working on his rifle or something to that affect when the intruder broke in the owner stated it was dark in the room where the intruder was and the owner thought he had a handgun (He didn't) so the owner fired at center mass nearly killing the intruder.
He was let off due to the belief the intruder also had a fire arm so he fired the round, after that case was lost the intruder tried to take the matter through common law for grievous bodily harm and medical expenses which were substantial given the hole blown in him but that was thrown out as well so the intruder lost all round.

Here in my state our fire arms must be locked up no chance of saying "Hang on mate I'll just get my rifle or shotty out to defend my self it won't happen and chances are you'll be charged and lose your guns.
I have stuff stashed all over the house, under beds, around corners, kill the lights you know your house they don't and remember they are the baddie there are no queens-bury rules you have to win at all costs.
When you front court the only statement you need to make is "I feared for my life" that was told to me by my nephew who is a serving Federal Detective in the Australian Federal Police.

[Gil Boyd]

Clearly what he faced at 1.30 in the morning in his own home was aggrevated burglary by two thugs intent on stealing and threatening with a screwdriver, and if he states he feared for his life or his property his reaction was proportionate and fully justified.
Good news, this morning he was released and bailed.
I have always said, that it is so easy for a jury or anybody who has never been through that at that time of night, to judge, in the daylight operations of a court room filled with people .................wait till it happens to you and see what you do while your backside is going half Crown sixpence!! (A British term used to explain the relaxed and tensioned area around ones backside when put in fear)
"An Englishman's home is his castle"

[browningautorifle]

Two armed (screwdriver) intruders break into a home, homeowner wounds one who later dies. The home owner is up for a murder charge.

That's exactly the same as it would be here in Canada.

[rcathey]

That's exactly the same as it would be here in Canada.

Shame.
A pawn shop owner killed an armed robber near me just the other day. Great guy, family ran business. The rumor mill in the pawn shop circles says it was sort of a "death by cop" type situation. Anyway, no charges at all for this fellow.

[browningautorifle]

Shame.

It is, they have to justify their existence by charging SOMEONE... Mind, a policeman from my past explained that then crown examines it and expunges you of wrongdoing...but they HAVE to do it that way for society.

[CINDERS]

Where is it written that the baddies have the same rites as the honest citizen it makes me puke when it goes to court that the citizen whom for any reason was protecting themselves/Family or property has to justify their actions with the possibility of jail time.
All we hear in the press is what a woeful childhood these poor buggers had, nope stuff'em I say they are doing wrong they know it so they can face the consequences what consideration do they give for the grief or heartache they cause SFA nope should deep six the lot of them off our coast to keep our White Pointers here fed so they wont attack legitimate swimmers.

[Paul S.]

Not to flog a dead horse, political or otherwise, but NSW as long as 30 years ago made it quite clear that the use of deadly force, even in the defence of one's own life was unlawful. That didn't sit well with some of us, who being Catholic, knew the Catholic Churches teachings regarding self defence, death occurring as a result of self-defence, etc. Basically the Church teaches that one has a responsibility to defend one's self and other innocent people, and that if the 'evil-doer' bears the guilt of his/her own death should it happen. The question then was whether NSW law wrongly infringed upon one's (specifically Catholics) religious freedoms and one's adherence to the teachings of the Church.

No one within the Church or government pressed the issue far enough for any resolution.