Judge says homeowners CAN beat up burglars because new 'householder defence' does not break human rights laws
- 'Householder defence' was introduced to 'toughen up' self defence laws
- Was challenged by father of man in coma after being tackled as 'intruder'
- However, High Court ruled no human rights breach in attacking burglars
- Force which is considered to be 'grossly disproportionate' remains illegal
Sir Brian Leveson (pictured), sitting
with Mr Justice Cranston, said it is up to a jury to determine whether
the householder's action was reasonable in the circumstances
Judges have backed ‘bash a burglar’ laws that give householders the right to use force to tackle intruders.
In
a landmark ruling, the High Court said allowing people to use
‘disproportionate’ levels of violence to protect themselves and their
families from housebreakers did not breach human rights laws.
In
2013, then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling toughened up
self-protection laws to dispel doubts over the right to fight back
against burglars.
But
the ‘householder defence’ was challenged by the family of a man who has
been in a coma for more than two years after he was tackled when he
entered a home at 3am.
Denby
Collins, 39, was restrained in a headlock by several terrified members
of the household in Gillingham, Kent, in December 2013 and when police
arrived to arrest him on suspicion of burglary he was unconscious.
Mr Collins was taken to hospital but has remained in a coma ever since and doctors say he has little prospect of getting better.
Director
of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders decided in September 2014 not to
prosecute the homeowner, known only as ‘B’ for legal reasons.
Under
the rules, a person is permitted to use ‘disproportionate force’ to
challenge an intruder in their home, which could include the use of
lethal force. Only ‘grossly disproportionate’ force is illegal.
Mr
Collins’s father Peter, who disputes that his son was an intruder,
launched a legal battle claiming the ‘bash a burglar’ laws contravened
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects
life.
But
yesterday the High Court in London threw out the case. Two judges said
the law was compatible with human rights legislation. Sir Brian Leveson,
president of the Queen’s Bench Division, said: ‘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.’
Mr
Justice Cranston said the law ‘meant 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’.
Denby
Collins (pictured) 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
He
added: ‘The circumstances are likely to be rare, but one can envisage
force being used by householders in self-defence which is objectively
disproportionate but which is reasonable given what they believed those
circumstances to be.’
The
Collins family said in a statement released by their solicitors,
Hickman and Rose, that they were disappointed with the ruling and are
considering an appeal.
The
Ministry of Justice said: ‘We welcome this judgment, which confirms
that the provisions under the Crime and Courts Act 2013 are compatible
with our obligations under human rights legislation.’
No comments:
Post a Comment