|
On the 15th July new provisions of the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 came into effect.
One of these provisions are the self-defence provisions of the new Act which make it clear to the public, prosecutors and the police that those who use reasonable force to protect themselves or others should not be prosecuted.
It will mean that members of the public who tackle criminals are unlikely to be prosecuted if they can show they acted instinctively or because they feared for their safety, As long as they use no more force than absolutely necessary, people should have confidence that the law will support them, so long as:
§ They acted instinctively
§ They feared for their safety or that of others, and acted based on Their perception of the threat faced and the scale of that threat
§ They acted to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained
§ The level of force used was not excessive or disproportionate in the circumstances as they viewed them.
With regard to the new Act Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said:
“The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens, but also be seen to work on their side. The Government strongly supports the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force. This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim.
Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it's the responsibility of all of us. Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it - in other words, making a reality of justice.
'These changes in the law will make clear - victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system. We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal.”
In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 will give them greater legal protection. In one recent case, two burglars broke into a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died but the husband was not prosecuted. The other burglar was convicted.
As we reported in last months newsletter, in the article written by Garry Slapper (Director of the Centre for Law at The Open University), in the previous 15 years up to 2005, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated, that when the courts dealt with over 20 million crimes, there had only been 11 prosecutions against householders.
Other examples of householders or victims not being prosecuted include:
§ Robbery at a newsagent's. One of the two robbers died after being stabbed by the newsagent. The Crown Prosecution Service did not prosecute the newsagent but prosecuted the surviving robber who was jailed for six years.
§ A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home. There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence.
§ Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. The barmaid was not prosecuted.
§ A middle-aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull. The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute.
Examples where prosecutions for excessive use of force did result include:
§ A man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, tied him up, beat him, threw him into a pit and set fire to him.
§ A number of people trespassed on private land to go night-time fishing. They were approached by a man with a shotgun who threatened to shoot them. They ran away but one of the men was shot in the back with a mass of 40 shotgun pellets.
§ A householder lay in wait for a burglar who tried to burgle his shed. The householder shot him in the back.
Under the new Act police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.
The new law makes it clear that householders should not be prosecuted so long as they used "reasonable force" to protect themselves or others and acted in response to the scale of the threat.
For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them. However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor generally, is lying in wait to ambush them.
In May’s newsletter we reported the case of Edwin Pitkin who was told that he would not have to face court over the fatal stabbing of 32-year-old Mark Woods whom he believed to be a burglar breaking into his house. Mark Woods, in a confused state after a 12 hour drink and drugs binge, believed that Mr. Pitkin was trying to stop him entering his own home. Mr. Pitkin, believing Mark Woods to be a burglar, armed himself with a kitchen knife and went downstairs. Mark Woods died as a result of a scuffle breaking out as he continued to try to enter what he believed to be his own home.
And in June’s newsletter we reported the case of Tony Singh, a shopkeeper, who was found not guilty of a charge of murder after he defended himself against an armed robber who tried to steal his takings. During the struggle the robber received a single fatal stab wound to the heart with his own knife.
The new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 now makes it legislatively clear that householders should not be prosecuted so long as they used "reasonable force" to protect themselves or others and acted in response to the scale of the threat. Although it seems to repeat what our Criminal and Common Law already allow for, having an Act of Parliament that is weighted in favour of the law-abiding citizen cannot be a bad thing.
To learn more about this law and many others relating to the use of Reasonable Force why not consider attending our Restraint & Breakaway Instructors Qualifying Course in September this year or March 2009. For more details click here
|
