A review has concluded laws on confronting intruders are 'sound'
Posted on 01/13/2005 6:24:58 AM PST by yankeedame
Last Updated: Thursday, 13 January, 2005, 02:32 GMT
Court fear after confronting burglar
As laws governing how much force householders can use against intruders remain unchanged, one man remembers how his own frightening experience was worsened by a legal battle.
Derek Godfrey-Brown, 64, was charged with grievous bodily harm after confronting and injuring an intruder he found in his bedroom.
Mr Godfrey-Brown was a publican and company director in Basingstoke, Hampshire, at the time of the incident about 10 years ago and kept irregular working hours.
He said he remembers walking into a downstairs bedroom and surprising a burglar who had climbed in through the window.
"I caught him and he lashed out at me and I reacted with the club that I had and I still have now, " Mr Godfrey-Brown said.
He struck the intruder, breaking his leg.
"I am not a violent person, but the adrenaline is racing so fast if you are confronted with that situation... it happens so fast and you react."
He said he was concerned for his wife and teenage daughter who were in the house at the time.
'Sensed threat'
He also couldn't really see what the intruder was doing when he confronted him because it was dark.
But he "sensed a threat", and that he was going to be kicked hard in the groin.
After he hit the intruder, who turned out to be a soldier, the man "limped off" and Mr Godfrey-Brown called the police.
But Mr Godfrey-Brown, now retired and living in Devon, soon found out this was just the start of a nightmare - he was later charged with grievous bodily harm.
You wouldn't believe the drama created by a court case. I must have been an absolute ogre to live with
Derek Godfrey-Brown "My legal people said grievous bodily harm was quite a serious charge... I was convinced I was not guilty and still am convinced of that," he said.
He pleaded not guilty and elected for a crown court trial to prove his innocence.
The stress of the pending case hung over him for months.
"I was apprehensive. If I'd have got a criminal conviction I'd have lost my pub licence and my job and it would have given me a record from then to eternity.
"You wouldn't believe the drama created by a court case. I must have been an absolute ogre to live with."
He said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case around a week before the trial. He believes the reason given was insufficient evidence.
"I was exceedingly angry about that," he said. "I went through that drama of nine and a half months. Why couldn't the CPS have dropped it earlier?"
'Out of touch'
Mr Godfrey-Brown has since confronted a second intruder in his home, but said this was less frightening because the burglar "ran off when I turned the lights on".
He said he feels the home secretary and other government figures, who have bodyguards for protection, are somewhat "out of touch".
"They don't realise the difficulties ordinary people face."
But he still believes the current law allowing people to use "reasonable force" against intruders should remain unchanged.
"We do not need additional legislation, it is becoming a nanny state," he said.
But Mr Godfrey-Brown feels his own treatment by the police and the charges he faced were "over the top".
He would like to see police officers interpreting the law "with discretion", so cases similar to his own do not reach court.
Time for some jury nullifcation. Assuming he gets a jury over there.
Ahh, the joys of socialism.
Note to self: This crap will happen in the USA over my dead body.
"becoming"?
"From my dead cold fingers"
It doesn't say what happened to the criminal and whether he was charged for trespassing.
If this wasn't so serious, it could be funny. When a nation goes this far off the deep end, it's only a matter of time before it collapses under it's own stupidity. We must remain vigilant in the United States that this NEVER is permitted here.
In Britain, when you wake up with an intruder in your room, and women in the house, you are politely to show him to the door, going ahead to turn on the lights so that he does not stumble on the way out.
Then you may call the police. Stress that the intruder was very docile and that they should wear their kid gloves when taking him into custody.
And if/when it does, people will eventually figure out that it is not in their best interest to involve the cops, it's easier just to dump the body somewhere.
I never realized all those Monte Python skits were based on reality.
If someone broke into my house in the night, I'm the kind of guy that would immediately go for the mop and bucket, or maybe the shop vac, since by the time I got downstairs, the pups would have spread his remains all over the place.
Wonder what the limeys think about punishing innocent puppies for reacting naturally(with a little professional schooling of course.)
If burglars are innocent, a dog has to be more so.
It's in both their natures.
*sigh*. How many times does this have to be refuted?
Self defence is perfectly legal, with the caveat that the force you use must be reasonable. As far as I'm aware, the decision on the proportionality of your reaction is made by a jury in each individual case- and as somebody who applauds the common sense of most Britons this is fine by me. If a jury feels that I was within my rights to confront somebody, then that's fine- which is why the Home office (acting sensibly for a change) has decided not to change the law and instead publicise what the current one is.
The Director of Public Prosecutions recently stated that (and I quote); "only 11 prosecutions have been brought in the past 15 years against occupants of domestic or commercial premises who tackled intruders. Homeowners have escaped prosecution in some cases even where burglars have been killed."
Not that people seem to care of course, it's far more satisfying to believe a load of rubbish and then get all shadenfreude-filled about it.
The Director of Public Prosecutions recently stated that (and I quote); "only 11 prosecutions have been brought in the past 15 years against occupants of domestic or commercial premises who tackled intruders. Homeowners have escaped prosecution in some cases even where burglars have been killed."
Not that people seem to care of course, it's far more satisfying to believe a load of rubbish and then get all shadenfreude-filled about it.
Then perhaps you can enlighten the unwashed in the colonies by perhaps adding additional information to this story. The way I read it is that the homeowner saw a guy in his house, and when the intruder lunged at him, the homeowner kneecapped him and broke his leg.
Was the use of force here not a rational decision? Was the use of force excessive? I'd say not, as I would have smacked him in the melon and let the meatwagon and the coroner do the rest.
So, please, why did this man have to be put through the English legal system for protecting his property, wife and daughter?
APf
Well, it's for the CPS (crown prosecution service) and the police to decide whether the guy was charged with anything or not- and as the case was dropped it's a good bet they realised that there was no case to answer. Note that he was charged but not convicted or even had to stand trial. If it had come to trial it would have been for a jury to decide on whether he was guilty of GBH which IMO is fair enough- I'm sure that as sensible people they'd have acquitted him and it seems that as the case was dropped the CPS obviously thought so as well.
Also, there are two sides to every story (although one is generally less truthful then the other). I expect the burglar's lawyers were pressing for a conviction, claiming that the force was unreasonable or some such rubbish. This couls easily have led to the homeowner being charged. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable for such a case to come to court if the evidence is sufficiently confused, but obviously in this instance it was fairly obvious that the homeowner had done nothing wrong and so did not have to stand trial.
SHOOT, SHOVEL, AND SHUT UP!
I would be interested to know how an unarmed old age pensioner, a woman, or a disabled person could use sufficient force, reasonable or not, to overpower a career burglar who may be armed with a knife or a cosh and who may have an accomplice. Given that the victim is likely to have been woken up in the middle of the night and so will be disorientated, then it seems insane for the Government to further disable them with the caveat that the force they use must be "reasonable".
As far as I'm aware, the decision on the proportionality of your reaction is made by a jury in each individual case- and as somebody who applauds the common sense of most Britons this is fine by me. If a jury feels that I was within my rights to confront somebody, then that's fine- which is why the Home office (acting sensibly for a change) has decided not to change the law and instead publicise what the current one is.
Speaking purely from a moral perspective, I believe that if you are protecting yourself, or your family from a burglar on your property, then you should not be prosecuted even if the burglar dies. The case should never go to Court and especially not if the burglar was only wounded. Having no clear "rules of engagement" other than the vague "reasonable" and relying entirely on the 'common sense' of a jury, or lack of it in some cases, is a surefire way to facilitate miscarriages of justice against the victim. Unless the members of the jury have been in a similar position to the cornered burglary victim then they will be unable to empathise with the fear and panic the victim was feeling at the moment they confronted the burglar, common sense is a very poor substitute for empathy.
The Director of Public Prosecutions recently stated that (and I quote); "only 11 prosecutions have been brought in the past 15 years against occupants of domestic or commercial premises who tackled intruders.
Well that is 11 prosecutions too many in my opinion. Anyway, that figure doesn't take into account all the victims like Mr Godfrey-Brown who suffer at the hands of the CPS for months, in his case nine and a half months, before the case against them is finally dropped. Frankly, there are better things for the CPS to do with tax-payers' money than harass respectable people who injured a burglar while repelling them.
Homeowners have escaped prosecution in some cases even where burglars have been killed."
Good. If a few more burglars could be eliminated under similar circumstances, (as opposed to the current trend where burglars regularly stab elderly people to death), then we would finally have an effective deterrent against burglary and the insanely high burglary rate would start to fall.
Not that people seem to care of course, it's far more satisfying to believe a load of rubbish and then get all shadenfreude-filled about it.
The introduction of the law requiring the use of "reasonable" force against burglars and the prohibition on the granting of FAC licenses for firearms to be used for personal or home defence, both occurred in the post WWII era. Prior to that Britons had much more robust rights when it came to tackling burglars and intruders. Interestingly, also in the post WWII era, we have seen a sharp rise in the burglary rate. Could it be that since burglars know that they are unlikely to be caught and convicted (13% of burglaries were solved in 2003-2004), that even if they are convicted the maximum punishment they can receive is a short custodial sentence (first time burglary offenders are not even jailed) and that their victims are prohibited from using serious force against them, then perhaps they have decided that a risk-benefit analysis makes burglary a safe and profitable career? That might go some way to explaining why this crime has become progressively more common in the past few decades.
Wasn't there an Brit on this board a couple of weeks ago mentioning what a paradise England is? Didn't he also mention he didn't have any problems protecting himself?
My sympathies to this brave gentleman. He did the right thing, protecting his family. Glad I'm not living in Britain.
Do you mean Burlywood? I believe he was still posting in December. He said something like his fists and his feet are all he felt he would ever need to deal with burglars. If he feels that way then that is fine for him, but not so good for elderly people, lone women or the disabled. I do wish people would consider the more vulnerable individuals in society when they decide what course of action is legally defensible when tackling professional criminals - who let's not forget - may also be armed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.