MPs' lobby: Householder protection

Patrick Mercer wants householders to be able to defend themselves more, do you?

Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens voiced his support for amending the law on householders' capacity to defend themselves from burglary in December 2004.

But, after consultation, the prime minister and the director of public prosecutions rejected calls for further legislation on the issue.

The Conservative shadow minister for homeland security, Patrick Mercer MP, is set to bring the so-called "Tony Martin law" to life, to support householders' efforts to protect their property.

What the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Household Protection) Bill seeks to do Clarify, in statute, what "reasonable force" is Establish the concept of "grossly disproportionate" force in criminal law Attempt to ensure the law favours the victim of burglary Help to deter violent burglaries

Would you know what "reasonable force" is if you had to tackle an intruder? Do you think more legislation is necessary? Or do you think the law is clear enough to ensure justice?

We've put your questions to Patrick Mercer MP and the interview appears below.

WATCH NOW

---

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received:

Whatever the law says in theory, in practice it's meaningless unless we are allowed the right to own weapons for self-defence. Until then the criminal will always have the advantage. And in reply to B Goldie, in other countries where people are treated like responsible citizens, there are no problems.
Alex Swanson, Milton Keynes

If you are acting outside the law you should be outside the protection of the law.
Paul Price, Blackpool

Confronting a burglar probably heightens the threat Mike, Oxon

This debate should focus on eliminating an immediate threat to you and your family. Confronting a burglar probably heightens the threat, even if the aim is the get them to "run away". If someone has the opportunity to surprise the burglar and to "incapacitate" them without the confrontation risk, then is this deemed "reasonable force" even if it means that such an action could kill or maim the burglar? Or are we asking are citizens to obey the same code the police, who also work under a "reasonable force" regime, and issue warnings to the burglar first?
Mike Sloan, Oxon

To prevail in a confrontation you must use immediate, superior, overwhelming force - any military scholar will tell you that. It should be the same if I found an intruder inside my house after dark. I would expect the right to use overwhelming force to prevent him harming me or my family. I do not want the right to kill him but I do expect to be able to hit him hard enough to prevent him being a threat to me or my family until the police arrive. If I cause him a serious injury in the process that is risk the burglar takes the second he crosses my threshold after dark. Burglars should be the ones in fear of their lives, not the householder.
Simon Dodkins, Geneva, Switzerland

I have just listened to the news and heard that one can hit the intruder once or perform a rugby tackle, unfortunately not only the young and able are victims.
Margaret Linne, Darwen

I think you have the right because it is your own house and you can do what you want to do to guard your own house.
Peter, Bridgwater

I am a homeowner, father and grandfather. Therefore, I have a vested interest in this issue but I say no to any attempt to give individuals the right to punish those who enter your property unlawfully. Sure; defend yourself and your family, but attacking someone because they are in your house does not constitute defending yourself. Material possessions can be replaced. However life and limbs are the most valuable thing that any of us has. If an intruder attacks you it is a completely different ball game! The law already recognises this distinction. Where's the problem?
Harry Webb, Broadstairs

Please bring the so-called 'Tony Martin law' to life. Reasonable force today is basically a flick of the ear or nose, which is simply ludicrous. I heard a story about a war veteran who wrestled with a burglar who was about to hit him across the face with a fence plank. The veteran was fined for GBH. I also read a case where a burglar fell down the stairs in his victim's house. The burglar claimed compensation on the grounds that there was no warning about the stairs.
Steve Clarkson, Pickering

I am really worried now about whether my dog might have to be put down Jon, Reading

If I set my dog on an intruder, does the intruder then have the right to demand that the dog be put down, if he is injured? If I keep a baseball bat or hammer under the bed, and then use it, would that not be seen as having pre-meditated the intrusion? I feel even more unsafe in my house now after the debate surrounding home security than before. I am really worried now about whether my dog might have to be put down if it is tasked to challenge a burglar.
Jon Dobson, Reading

The answer is simple: stab the scumbag and tell the police you had to! I'd say that is a fair amount of force for a trespasser! Lets get some power back!
Phil Palmer, Birmingham

It is my belief that even though the criminal has broken the Law he should still have protection from it.
Ben Whisker, Wakefield

Surely if you use 'reasonable force' and the burglar is seriously hurt or killed, then those injuries must have been received due to an accident. Therefore, if burglars want to avoid such accidents, they should stay out of other people's houses.
Dave Godfrey, Swindon

Jonathan McBrand: I really must correct your description of events. Mr Martin came down his stairs in pitch black, was being screamed at and threatened by intruders and then was blinded in the face by a light. He could not see that someone was running away. For all he knew, within the next second out of that blinding light he could have been shot. As a pre-emptive action, he shot first into the light. When referring to his case, we really must stop inferring that he saw someone running away and decided to shoot them in the back. Mr Martin should not have faced any prosecution whatsoever.
Tom Franklin, London

Of course, if burglars and housebreakers didn't enter people's premises in the first place, they wouldn't suffer from the effects of 'reasonable force'. Rather than relying on the fear of being beaten up or worse, perhaps the penalties for committing crimes should be increased. That way we all know where we stand.
G J Robinson, Reading

I would like to ask how a court evaluates force "that you honestly and instinctively" believed was necessary. Tony Martin honestly and instinctively believed that it was necessary to shoot into a light shone in his face and he was done for manslaughter. If I find a man in my bedroom and I have a gun, I would "honestly and instinctively" think it right to shoot him. The new leaflet says if I attack the intruder after they are unconscious I am breaking the law. How am I to know that he is unconscious? The leaflet is ridiculous, the law is an ass.
Patricia, Henley

Why can I only use "makeshift tools" to hurt the intruder but not ones designed to protect me properly? Why must I shoulder the risk of death/rape/attack but the intruder doesn't? As far as I am concerned, if you enter my property you have introduced absolute uncertainty into my life. I should legally be able to act as I choose given the uncertain position you have forced upon me. If killing the intruder is my way of ensuring my safety, then let me walk free.
Nat, London

I think the law should be clear that a householder is able to use any force they want against a person who is unlawfully in their home, whether that person is threatening them, or not.
Les, Morpeth

The fact of the matter is that the prosecuting authorities are all too ready to prosecute the easy-to-find victim and not the hard-to-catch burglar. The statistics produced prove nothing, only the number of people who are taken to court for protecting their property and not the true numbers who are victimised by an over zealous state-controlled police for trying to protect themselves and their property. Again the state has taken the easy option and these so called guidelines will do absolutely nothing to clarify the position or allay people's genuine fears.
Anthony, Devon

I've read all the arguments for and against, and I've yet to find an answer to the most fundamental question of all: what rights can a burglar expect if he intends on breaking into someone's property? Whether he is there to steal a vase or attack a pensioner, the burglar's intent is to conduct a criminal act. All I read about is the negatives - you can't do this, you can't do that. I'd like to see positive action that makes it clear what will happen if you burgle.
Pam Derry, London

The new leaflet is madness Josephine, Wokingham

This is bizarre. So I'm allowed to kill if I honestly believe it's necessary? Why else would I be kill him, out of fun? Does anyone really think Tony Martin didn't act because he "honestly believed" he was protecting himself? Remember: he couldn't see what was in front of him (a point noticeably omitted by some of the writers here). If someone invades my property, it's up to me what is reasonable, what is honest and what is believable, not a court. The new leaflet is madness it hasn't clarified the law at all it's just fudged the issue with some half-way solution: no change to the law, just a piece of paper. More cowardly government.
Josephine, Wokingham

The law is failing the public in this debate about burglary. The perception is that the courts are not giving out sentences to convicted burglars that will deter others. Until this happens then it is inevitable that someone will be killed. I want the police and the courts to protect me otherwise it will be a free for all.
John Whitehouse, Birmingham

Ross, UK: You are continuing the poor reporting Ross. They stopped and shone a light in his eyes. He couldn't see what they were doing whilst they screamed at him. What would you do? Wait to see if they shoot you from the blinding light or shoot first in a pre-emptive strike which this leaflet says is valid?
Karen, Putney

Reasonable force is whatever you believe to be necessary to guarantee you and your family will not be harmed. That means incapacitating the burglars or scaring them off. If you are confronted by several intruders, the only way to achieve this may be to resort to extreme, potentially lethal force. The law on self-defence should be just as specific and unequivocal as race hate laws are. That is a reasonable request.
Ray Gray, London, England

I think in these days of crime if I found anyone in my home without my consent I would probably end up going to jail for protecting my property.
Robert, Doncaster

What if the person removing my property is a bailiff and I catch him in the kitchen and hit him with the closet thing to hand, like a butcher's knife.
Oliver Stieber, Newbury

The absurdity of reasonable force is this. When you confront an intruder you act on instinct. If you start grappling then adrenaline compels you to use all force at your disposal to subdue the intruder. If people are allowed to protect their homes they must be allowed to use any force they feel necessary. Burglary will plummet if the burglar knows he may encounter lethal force. You should be able to beat trespassers over the head if you feel you need to.
George, London

Of course I want to protect my property and family. The police can't do it so I'll have to do it.
SP

The law must allow for the difference between reacting when under the stress and fear of a confrontation and the subsequent analysis of that action in the cold light of day. I do not advocate a free for all on burglars but the law must always recognise that it is always the burglar who puts themselves into the situation not the householder.
James Miller, Harlow

I quite sympathise with a law which looks after the interests of the poor and misguided individuals who have to break into those hard working peoples' property for a crumb of bread for survival
Manji Kara, Harrow

"An Englishman's home is his castle", need we say more?
Karen Smith, London

Reasonable force is difficult to define when your heart is in your mouth and adrenaline is pumping. You would grab the nearest thing which you could hit the intruder with and use it if necessary. Grappling with a potential knife-wielding intruder is suicide.
Steve Renolds, Wilts

Since this debate began, at least five cases have been identified where householders have been convicted of using unreasonable force. None of those householders asked to be placed in a situation where they had to confront a burglar. The way I see it, the burglar, who

the burglar...has the chance to run away if disturbed Andy D, London

should not be there in the first place, has the chance to run away if disturbed. The inference, if he does not do so, is that he intends to continue his criminal activities by violent means. I have no way of telling how far he would go. My instinct would be to hit him as hard as I could and keep hitting him until he stopped moving and I was sure that he could not get up to continue the fight. That seems to me to be wholly reasonable. Yet the law as it stands does not reflect that. It places the onus on the householder to make an assessment, probably in the middle of the night while absolutely terrified of what level of force is likely to be reasonable in the circumstances.
Andy D, London

Householders are already able to use any force but like everyone else if they go over the top they accept the risk they might be prosecuted. Why should householders be legally allowed to use violence that, if done in the street, would qualify them as a criminal?
John, Fleet

I believe that any person invading someone else's home should leave all rights at the door. If you don't want to take the risk stay out.
BM, Banbury

Criminals should have no rights while they are breaking the law and no right to any compensation if they are hurt while breaking the law. Personally I wouldn't worry about grossly disproportionate force either. Break into someone's home or attack them and you deserve what is coming.
Anon, UK

In my opinion, if the intruder shows any sign of violence - by not leaving empty handed immediately when requested to do so - any force not involving a weapon is reasonable and force involving a weapon is reasonable if the intruder is stronger than the householder.
Roger, Stockport

A burglar is a person who forces entry, attacks the occupants and/or attempts to steal or damage property. He is easily distinguished from a postman or a child retrieving a ball. He will most likely be carrying your video or jewellery. Such a person can expect the householder to use extreme or even lethal force to retrieve the items and evict the intruder from the property. This is part of the deterrent. The law should take this into account. If a change is needed to reflect this, so be it.
David, Cornwall

If there were a new law would it apply just to private households or would it extend to commercial premises as well?
John Ley, London

What may be thought of as reasonable, in the safety of a law court, in the cold light of day may be different in the early hours of the morning, in your own home, fearful for your family and property.
Ronald, Biggleswade

If you clip a burglar on the jaw and then summon the police while he is out cold, does that count as reasonable force?
Daniel, Kent

It should be up to the prosecution to prove that the force was unreasonable - if, rightly or wrongly, you genuinely believe your life is in danger there is no level of force which should not be justified.
Bill , Lanarkshire

Don't let the Tony Martin case come into this debate. He shot a fleeing vandal in the back and killed him, there was no justification for what he did and he should have faced a murder charge in my opinion. As opposed to the pre-meditated wait in an allotment shed, (with a shotgun), when a break-in is into one's home the right of self defence and self preservation should be protected and enshrined by law. Or is this only the preserve of the government who can even go as far as invading foreign countries to protect and preserve itself?
Jonathan McBrand, Nottingham

Where the law is very unclear is where an offender is leaving your premises maybe with some of your property. Are you entitled to clobber this person to rescue your possessions? The intruder is no longer a threat to you. This single aspect DOES need clear legislation.
Colin McCormick, Plymouth

All this talk of a 'right' to protect your family and your property is ridiculous - this is not a rights issue at all - it is an issue of practicality - what is the best way to ensure the least harm possible is caused by burglaries? At the moment only a tiny proportion of burglaries

This encourages machismo and bravado Anna, London

involve violence, so the harm done is mostly to property. If you allow people to start attacking burglars whether they are being violent to start with or not, then you increase the amount of harm being caused, and also change the type of harm being caused to personal injury which is far more serious. If you are actually being attacked, the law already allows you to defend yourself. The proposed legislation would allow people to make the first move against burglars who may not have intended violence at all. This encourages machismo and bravado which can only lead to a more violent society. This won't deter violent burglaries, but rather cause more burglars to start carrying weapons, as they will know they are more likely to be attacked themselves. In the end I would rather a burglar stole some of my possessions than anyone got their head smashed in, even the burglar.
Anna, London

I think that your intruder proposals could be beneficial; but I also think they could easily lead to a situation where burglars enter our homes prepared not only to steal our property, but to kill or be killed. How does the Tory spokesman suggest we survive having been empowered to kill, when suddenly faced with a drug addict armed with a gun, and convinced that our every empowered move is now life threatening to him?
James Clark, Newark

Why should anyone have access to legal redress for that which happens whilst participating in illegal activities?
Tom Baker, Flintshire

Surely the bill would lead to an 'arms race' in which burglars will feel the necessity to carry guns, knives and other deadly weapons to protect themselves from householders. It will indeed up the stakes in the burglar's mind and increase the risk of violent or lethal confrontation with householders. Instead of the burglar running away when discovered, this bill will mean we have to escape the newly created desperado assassin.
Mrs Cook, Newark

As the government apparently supported the doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" in Iraq, I do not understand why they should have a problem with giving the householder the same rights against burglars.
Richard, Fairford

Whatever the public want this government will not listen, never have, never will.
Ron H, Chislehurst

I think the law's sufficiently clear. You can't define reasonable force because it all depends on the

What confuses people about the Tony Martin case is that it was badly reported Ross, UK

circumstances of each case. What confuses people about the Tony Martin case is that it was badly reported. He waited for the burglars to walk past him in the dark and then shot them in the back. The jury accepted that was unreasonable. How could a man pointing a shotgun at someone's back consider that they were a threat to him? We have to remember that the jury was made up of at least some homeowners who would want to protect themselves from burglars but even they were convinced what he did was wrong.
Ross, UK

A burglar loses his right to any form of protection under the law once he enters your house. The only problem is that in the UK we don't allow householders the means to defend themselves. Over the last 15 years 23 US states have allowed householders to use guns, as a result burglary rates fell by 90% over that period. US crimes rates, once far worse than ours, are how far better in most areas. There's a message in there for us.
John R Smith, UK

This law is really just a response to the failure of the justice system in its dealings with all types of criminal activity. If the public were confident that criminals would be effectively dealt with rather than let off with what they perceive as soft options, there would be little call for the need for force. After all repeat offenders would be in jail and not committing burglary. There is no need for a change in the law on "reasonable force", what is required is a change in the way the CPS operate, and a change in Home Office requirements of the Police to investigate every use of force by everyone.
Barry P, Havant

Who would decide and what is grossly disproportionate force? How would you ensure that everyone knows what is acceptable and what isn't?
Tom, Cumbria

Some years ago, as a Police Officer, I shot at an armed criminal. I was quite rightly investigated by senior officers for my actions. Because I had acted correctly and the force used was "reasonable in the circumstance" I was not taken to court and did not fear that I would be prosecuted. It was quite right that I was fully investigated and stood briefly in a position where I could be prosecuted for a serious offence. The law acted as it should. In the case of Martin and almost every other case in which a householder has ended up in court the amount of force used has appeared to be disproportionate to the offence, or the circumstances. Shooting a person in the back whilst he is running away, beating an unconscious person into insensibility, and similar acts are not acceptable, and should not be lawful.
Anon, England

If a burglar broke into my house and I had to confront him, I'd knock him out and call the police. That's MY idea of reasonable force!
Daniel N, Kent

One day a burglar broke into my friend's house and attempted to strangle her. She managed to get him off by clubbing him over the head. She was then sued by the burglar. Do you really think that is fair?
Anon, UK

Reasonable force is a mealy-mouthed word devised to satisfy no party, but give the do-gooding liberals the satisfaction of having interfered and achieved a

Reasonable force is a mealy-mouthed word devised to satisfy no party, but give the do-gooding liberals George, Twickenham

measure of success. I applaud Mr Mercer's efforts to allow householders to defend their property. If you break the mores of society you cannot then ask for those same mores to protect you or give you an advantage at a later stage. Perhaps Mr Mercer can take matters a stage further and make criminals responsible for their actions, and pay the price with stiffer sentencing for recidivists, and tougher sanctions and financial penalties. The law needs to be clearer, more explicitly against the criminal and giving full protection to the victim.
George Hinton, Twickenham

Householders should be allowed to use any force they like, including UNreasonable force, against any burglar. Why should anyone take risks at all over the safety of themselves or their families?
Brian, London

I certainly agree with the thinking that any force should be used to stop a burglar in your home, after all he is the one committing a crime.
Brian Taylor, Chatham

I hope that Mr Mercer will say whether the proposed new law would provide a defence to people like Tony Martin who used an unlawful firearm to shoot someone in the back? If it would, this would provide an incentive to some people to obtain illegal weapons and hence would increase the number of illegal weapons in circulation.
Tim, Rugeley

Without doubt I for one - with a wife and small child - would do anything at all to stop any intruder in our home and with little remorse. I honestly think that most people thrown into that awful position would undoubtedly do the same. A criminal in my eyes gives up his or her rights to be defended by the law however trivial the crime.
Edwin Nisbett, Grimsby

This issue seems to be based around the legal phrase "reasonable force", which means that any judge or prosecuting lawyer can determine this extremely vague phrase in almost any way. Is it not beyond the wit of the masses of politicians, civil servants and lawyers to clearly define how a householder, especially at night-times, could defend themselves against unwarranted and often violent intrusions?
John, France

Why do people who object to a change in the law to bring the balance back in the favour of the homeowner use the ludicrous argument that it means people like the postman or a child fetching their ball could be legally attacked? Do they really think that householders are not capable of telling the difference between a burglar and the postman? Come on, it's not that hard, is it ?
Adr, Chester

Anyone entering a private abode uninvited and without announcing their intentions, does so at their own risk.
Tim H, Faversham

What about Scotland, where there is no law of trespass? Or is this another Tory policy aimed solely at England?
David Russell, Glasgow

I have always been told that reasonable force is force used proportionate to the violence used towards you. Therefore if someone punches you, you can punch some one. But if a gun is used there is a problem because legally we cannot hold guns but criminals might do. That is where the whole issue falls down. The implication is that we cannot use ultimate force to defend ourselves. On human rights, the criminal should lose them by default as he is abusing others. Since the Police are frequently unable to enforce the law on the spot, it leaves the victim very much unsupported. But hey who said that law was anything to do with justice?
Tony, Kent

Many people in this debate seem unclear about what reasonable force is. If a householder is physically able to apprehend and detain a burglar until the police arrive then that is OK but chasing after a fleeing burglar and shooting him (as in the Tony Martin case) is obviously not acceptable. However, if the householder is

Perhaps the householder can plead 'temporary insanity' Sue, Westcliff-on-Sea

physically weaker and is being set upon by the burglar and the only means of defending oneself results in the burglar being shot/stabbed or otherwise seriously injured or even killed, then that may be acceptable. A judge and jury would have to decide. But I don't think there is a single person in the land who would not be so fired up with anger, fear or adrenalin if they caught an intruder in their home that rational thinking would go out the window. In that case perhaps the householder can plead 'temporary insanity' if charges of assault are brought against him. In fact why not make a law that denies a burglar any rights once he enters someone's home?
Sue Woollard, Westcliff-on-Sea

To Kerry: If someone kicks a ball into my garden they have to come to the front door and ask permission to enter nicely. I certainly do not expect them climbing in uninvited.
Natalie, London

B Goldie states that postmen will be under threat. What nonsense! If a householder attacks an innocent person under any circumstances, he will be liable to the full force of the law. If you attack an intruder, then there should be no case to answer.
Steve Richards, Wimborne, Dorset, UK

There will be more innocent people injured than burglars - we are trying to prevent violence, not license it! This Tony Martin law is a potential licence for fascists to maim the postman if he is black and un-uniformed, then claim they felt "threatened" after the act.
B Goldie, Glasgow

In response to Surinder: isn't that the case already? The person protecting their home does not create the court case the so-called victim does. The victim DOES have to prove that the force was unreasonable
Tom, Thatcham

In response to Kerry: No, but you can give them a good whack with your handbag. I'm pretty sure that the judge and jury would be smart enough to make the distinction on a case by case basis.
Jeffrey Lake, London

If someone kicks a ball into your garden, and trespasses on your property to retrieve it, can you beat them over the head with a baseball bat?
Kerry, London

We should have the right to defend what we work extremely hard for. Burglars are prepared to harm us in our homes therefore we should be allowed to do so likewise.
CA Costis, Reading

I live in an isolated location and believe that I should have the right not only to defend my family and property from burglars but also the right to confront a burglar

The possibility exists of becoming another violent or armed crime statistic Alastair G, UK

irrespective of what his actions are at that precise moment of being challenged. The possibility exists of becoming another violent or armed crime statistic. What so-called reasonable measures can I take when challenging a burglar without becoming the subject of a police investigation? I hope that your answer will factor in the unreasonable extremes that burglars commonly commit, from murder downwards.
Alastair G, UK

Reasonable in whose eyes - the Police, the Judge or the Jury? Is it not reasonable to protect ones family and property? After all the intruder was not invited in and has the option not to commit the crime whereas the victim does not. Everyone should have the right to protect their families and property and the victim should have to demonstrate that the force used was unreasonable.
Surinder Bodwal, Crayford

The law is clear at the moment that you can use "reasonable force" however the Tony Martin case deeply confused people and makes them think that the law is not on their side. If Mr Mercer were to get his private Members Bill it would only assure people that the law is on their side. The home office could clear up the mess by publicly and clearly setting out how the law stands. I think reasonable force is the force to protect you, your house and family buy whatever means necessary. However if the intruder is leaving the property then he is not a threat. I do think that we need stronger legislation on this matter.
Jonathan Boot, Nottinghamshire

While I agree there is a need to clarify the law in this area-particularly with what constitutes "reasonable force", is there not a danger that the passing of this bill will further confuse the layperson? The recent re-classification of cannabis has led many to believe that it is lawful to possess. It is possible that a similar effect may result here.
Daniel Webb, London