From correspondents in London
February 02, 2005
From: Agence France-Presse


BRITONS are legally permitted to kill burglars breaking into their homes, but only in the heat of the moment and using “reasonable force”, a new police leaflet says.
The advice was contained in a special leaflet issued by British police and public prosecutors which attempts to clear up misinformation about how far people can go in defending their homes.

British tabloid newspapers have long campaigned to stop the occasional prosecutions launched against those who, in the eyes of the law, use excessive force to see off burglars.

Civil liberties groups, on the other hand, have warned that free rein for householders would effectively mean a vigilante culture.
Advertisement:

The new leaflet, issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service, says even the use of guns or knives can be permissible if people “honestly and instinctively” believe it is needed at the time.

“The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor,” Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald said.

“This is something the intruder brings on him or herself. I don't think we need to be too squeamish about the situation.”

While in some countries, such as the US, the law tends to heavily favour the property owner during break-ins, British householders can only use proportionate force.

Much of the recent debate was sparked by the case of Tony Martin, who was jailed for murder after shooting dead a 16-year-old burglar in 1999 at his remote farmhouse, which had been repeatedly broken into, a sentence that was later reduced.

Although Martin shot the boy in the back as he attempted to flee the house, some newspapers argued he should never have been jailed at all.

Among specific advice contained in the leaflet is the fact that rugby tackling a fleeing burglar to recover possessions is permissible, whereas attacking someone who is already unconscious is not.

news.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12123261-23109,00.html)

11.15am update Householders educated on intruder law Read the guidelines (pdf) (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2005/02/01/intruder_leaflet2005.pdf)

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday February 1, 2005
Guardian Unlimited

Tony Blair moved today to reassure householders that they were entitled to defend their home against intruders, as the government launched an information campaign to educate the public about the definition of "reasonable force". The leaflet - launched by the Crown Prosecution Service and Association of Chief Police Officers - comes after the government decided against reforming the law in favour of a Conservative idea of allowing all but "grossly disproportionate force" against intruders.

Today the prime minister told GMTV viewers: "Don't be in any doubt, you are entitled to defend yourself and it is only in the most extreme set of circumstances that anyone is going to get prosecuted for attacking or killing a burglar in their own home."

The new leaflet will attempt to clear up confusion over the point at which defending one's family and property becomes a crime.

In his first day in the job, the new Metropolitan police Chief Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, backed clarification of the existing law - despite previously having voiced support for the Conservatives' idea of that homeowners should only be prosecuted if they use "grossly disproportionate" force.

"I want people to feel that the police, the state, the prosecuting authorities are on their side and I want the intruders to feel afraid," he said.

"I want it to be clear that people are not at risk of prosecution if they resist somebody coming into their home."

Despite high profile cases, such as Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who shot dead a teenager who had burgled his farmhouse, and the financier John Monckton, who was knifed to death in his Chelsea home by an intruder, the government is keen to counter myths that homeowners are regularly prosecuted for fighting back against burglars.

It says that in the past 15 years, only 11 people had been prosecuted after attacking intruders, including cases in which burglars had been pursued and shot as they fled, and one in which an intruder was tied up and set alight.

Mr Blair told GMTV: "What the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and the police are saying is 'we don't actually need to change the law, what we need is for people to understand they are perfectly entitled to defend themselves against burglars in their own home'.

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, said last month that discussions with police and prosecutors had concluded that the existing law was "sound", despite an earlier hint from Mr Blair at prime minister's questions that he might "reach agreement" with the Tories on changing the law.

Today Mr Clarke said: "I believe in that old adage 'an Englishman's home is his castle'. That's exactly what should be the case and I believe the current law provides that. But people weren't sure and we needed to make that clear."

Tory MP Patrick Mercer has published a private member's bill proposing householders should face charges only if they use "grossly disproportionate force" and the shadow home secretary, David Davis, has urged Mr Clarke to rethink his decision not to change the law.

A CPS spokeswoman said: "The leaflet gives some guidance on what might be regarded as reasonable force."

The publication will be distributed through Citizens' Advice Bureaux and police forces in England and Wales as well as online.

Debate over householders' rights was triggered by former Metropolitan police Commissioner Sir John Stevens' comments that people should be allowed to use what force was necessary when tackling intruders without facing prosecution.

But while the Tories, supported by some of the tabloid press, called for a change in the law, others worried it would give 'carte blanche' to a US-style situation, where homeowners routinely arm themselves, only to often find the weapons turned back on themselves.

The guidelines state that homeowners need not worry about violence committed "in the heat of the moment", even with weapons if they are to hand, but that entrapping intruders or attacking them after they fall unconscious would probably constitute grounds for prosecution.

It says: "You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment.

"So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon."

The leaflet adds that the more extreme the circumstances and the more frightened a householder, the more force he or she can lawfully use. It also points out that intruders did not necessarily have to be the first to use violence. "If you have acted in reasonable self defence ... and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully.

"Indeed there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted."

It warns that you could still face the courts for using "excessive and gratuitous force" if, for example, you knocked someone unconscious but continued to attack them or if you set a trap to hurt or kill intruders rather than involving the police.

If burglars run off with your property, you can still use force to recover it, said the leaflet, adding: "A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable."

Director of public prosecutions Ken Macdonald QC said almost any level of violence was potentially acceptable, so long as it did not "step over into retribution or revenge".

There have been examples of householders not being prosecuted after intruders had been fatally stabbed or shot, or hit over the head with bats or metal bars, he added.