Sense
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:15 am
A landmark High Court ruling has deemed it legal for householders to deploy 'disproportionate force' against intruders.
The so-called 'householder defence' was introduced by former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling to 'toughen up' self defence laws 'for those who defend themselves and their loved ones'.
It was challenged by Peter Collins, the father of Denby Collins who remains in a coma after being tackled and restrained when he entered a house in Gillingham, Kent, allegedly as an 'intruder'.
However, the High Court today ruled that home owners did not breach human rights laws by attacking burglars.
Force which is 'grossly disproportionate' remains illegal, but no longer are families forced to be wary about taking on a raider.
Today's ruling lays down guidelines for how courts in England and Wales should deal with such cases in the future.
Two judges decided that the criminal law on self-defence in householder cases is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
But they warned that the effect of Section 76(5A) 'is not to give householders carte blanche in the degree of force they use against intruders in self-defence'.
President of the Queen's Bench Division Sir Brian Leveson, sitting with Mr Justice Cranston, declared: 'A jury must ultimately determine whether the householder's action was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.
'The headline message is and remains clear: a householder will only be able to avail himself of the defence if the degree of force he used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.'
Agreeing with the president, Mr Justice Cranston said the 'plain words' of the section read in their legal context 'mean that in householder cases the force used in self-defence is not unreasonable simply because it is disproportionate - unless, of course, it is grossly disproportionate'.
The case arose after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) decided in September 2014 not to prosecute the homeowner in the Collins case - referred to as 'B' for legal reasons.
Paul Bowen QC, acting for the father, asked the judges to rule that the decision was incompatible with the State's obligation under Article 2(1) of the human rights convention to protect the right to life.
But the judges ruled there were 'reasonable safeguards' in place to meet that obligation.
Sir Brian said: 'In the circumstances I conclude that the criminal law of England and Wales on self defence in householder cases, taken as a whole, fulfils the framework obligation under Article 2(1).'
The Collins family still want B prosecuted for causing Denby grievous bodily harm, either with or without intent, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
A statement released by their lawyers stressed that the family were 'disappointed' with the court's ruling and are considering an appeal.
It read: 'Denby Collins has been in a coma since December 2013, having been put in a neck lock and restrained on the floor by a householder who claimed to believe that he was an intruder into his home.
'Denby's parents are confident that, had the incident in which Denby was subjected to life-threatening force occurred nine months earlier, then the householder - and quite possibly at least one of the other four persons involved in the restraint - would have been charged and prosecuted for unlawful wounding or another offence of violence.'
The family statement said: 'Denby's family continue to believe that the current law insufficiently protects a member of the public from extreme violence being used in self-defence where, for example, the person is left in a coma or is killed because they're treated, rightly or wrongly, as an intruder into someone's home.
'They continue to hold the view that it should be sufficient for the CPS to prove that force used by anyone in self-defence is disproportionate for a person to be convicted for an act of violence of this type.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3xMUSg0vh
