 |
UK Ping list - if you would like on or off, freepmail me. |
Posted on 09/27/2007 2:33:24 PM PDT by UKrepublican
New laws protect have-a-go home owners
Home owners and "have-a-go heroes" defending themselves against burglars and muggers will have greater protection from prosecution, under an urgent review of the law to be unveiled by Jack Straw today.
The move - to be announced by the Justice Secretary in his Labour conference speech - will be aimed at ensuring that those protecting themselves or their homes in a "proportionate" way will not find themselves in court.
A source close to Mr Straw said last night that the plan was to reform self-defence laws in a way that "better balances the system in favour of victims of crime".
"This will be aimed at ensuring that those who seek to protect themselves, their loved ones and their homes as well as other citizens have confidence that the law is on their side," the source added.
This is the latest major announcement from Gordon Brown's administration designed to appeal to core Tory voters and comes amid mounting speculation that the Prime Minister is preparing to call a snap election this autumn.
He has already announced reviews of gambling, 24-hour drinking and drug laws since taking office in June.
To add to Tory woes as they trail in opinion polls, Mr Brown welcomed Lady Thatcher to tea at No.10 and Lord Tebbit yesterday named the Prime Minister as "Thatcher's heir".
Meanwhile several Conservative members, including the MP Quentin Davies and the millionaire donor Johan Eliasch, have defected to Labour. Speculation is mounting that Labour is preparing to unveil a new defector on the eve of the Tory conference.
A review of the self-defence laws, launched in 2004 following pressure from the Tories, led Tony Blair to rule out changes, as he described existing legislation as "sound".
But Mr Straw is understood to have decided new laws were necessary after he was involved in four "have-a go" incidents, which included chasing and restraining muggers near his south London home.
"I know from personal experience that you have all of a milli-second to make the judgment about whether to intervene," he will say. "In such a situation, the law on self-defence works much better than most people think; but not as well as it could or should.
"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."
Mr Straw will also urge people to help the police to apprehend criminals.
"Enforcing the law, securing justice, is not just a matter for 'them' — the courts, the prisons, the probation service, the police; but for all of us.
"Communities with the lowest crime, the greatest safety, are the ones with the most active citizens, with greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, empowered by the state and also supported by it — in other words, by making a reality of justice."
The police advise the public not to become involved in violent confrontations with criminals for their own safety.
The review will stop short of advocating "Martin's law" — after Tony Martin who was jailed for killing a burglar — which would give home owners the right to do the same.
Martin shot a burglar in the back at his remote Norfolk farm in 1999, which was deemed by the courts to be excessive force. However, his conviction prompted a wave of public sympathy and provoked a fierce debate over the right of home owners to defend themselves and their property.
The review will consider changes to the law to define what constitutes a "proportionate" response to criminals confronted by victims, home owners or bystanders. At present prosecutors have to decide what constitutes excessive force by using legal precedent.
A householder or "have a go hero" will not be prosecuted if he injures or even kills an intruder or mugger provided "reasonable force" is used.
He must show he feared immediate attack, had no escape and the response must be proportionate to the threat.
Changes recommended by the review will be included in a Criminal Justice Bill by the end of the year
| |
UK Ping list - if you would like on or off, freepmail me. |
PING
He has already announced reviews of gambling, 24-hour drinking and drug laws since taking office in June.
24-hour drinking? That'll catch up with you sooner or later.
It is first unbelievable that a law like this should even be needed. Wish you folks over the pond a bunch of good luck.
This is a 180 degree about turn for the labour party.
Proportionate, huh? Snort.
“Have a go”? Home defense is a game?
Sound like New York state's duty-to-retreat law.
And it's real popular.
With the perps.
every now and then the British present a peal of common sense.
Our version should be “Have at it”
‘every now and then the British present a peal of common sense.’
The British, in my experience, are paragons of common sense 24/7. Every now and then our govt presents a peal of common sense, usually just before they call an election. ;-)
‘There may be hope yet for the sceptered isle.’
We’ve managed to muddle by for a few millenia, I dare say we’ll manage a few more. ;-)
Just bring back the castle doctrine
I'll retreat before a threat in my own home... directly to the nearest available deadly weapon.
“He must show he feared immediate attack, had no escape and the response must be proportionate to the threat.”
OK! Here’s how I interpret this:
Any burglar/mugger I encounter who does not immediately retreat means I fear immediate attack.
I’ve got bad knees, so I have no escape.
Only a dead fool will stop to decide what is a proportionate response. If someone attacks you, to assume that he intends only minor injury to you is ludicrous. All unprovoked attacks by strangers MUST be considered life-threatening by innocent victims. Therefore, a proportionate response can/should be as life-threatening as necessary to stop the attack, ie., kill him before he kills you.
If you are being attacked in your home by an intruder & you manage to get the upper hand in a deadly scuffle, at what point must you stop striking your attacker? Who would have the “coolness” to hit the perp just enough to disable him rather than kill him?
Do they expect a victim to drop his butcher knife or axe because it is bigger than the perp’s box cutter?
A smart fella once told me that in this situation, just make sure you are the only one left to tell the story - 2 stories can complicate things for you.
Hey, I agree, but if you do that in NYS, you'd better have a good lawyer :(
Good show
Have a go at someone means to fight with them, in Aussie slang. I’d expect it means the same in Britain also.
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.