Tony Martin appeal verdict: Has justice been served?

The court of appeal has reduced Tony Martin's conviction for murder to manslaughter.

His sentence will now be reduced from a life sentence to five years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in one year.

The farmer was convicted in April last year after he shot and killed 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras and wounded the teenager's accomplice Brendon Fearon.

The court of appeal had heard that a "crucial misunderstanding" by his defence meant he did not initially receive a fair trial.

The pair had broken into Martin's home in Norfolk, on 20 August 1999. Michael Wolkind, QC, who heads Martin's new legal team, said his trial lawyers had not presented Martin's own account of what happened.

Mr Wolkind said the prosecution had alleged that Martin lay in wait for the burglars on the ground floor of his home but Martin has always maintained he acted in self defence.

Is the law about using force against intruders any clearer after this ruling? Has justice been served by the Appeal Court's decision?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

Of course we all want to defend ourselves against burglars

Dave Cross, London, UK

I'm appalled at what I've read on this page. The vast majority seem to believe that Martin did nothing wrong - but he killed another person. Of course we all want to defend ourselves against burglars but that does not (and must not) give us the right to take another life.
Dave Cross, London, UK

No matter which way you look at it, Tony Martin shot and killed someone, for which he should be punished. The only injustice in this case is the distorted scale of punishment in this country. What happened to "an eye for an eye"?
Jane, England

We can never know what he felt when being burgled, but since those men should never have been there in the first place I feel that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt that it was not murder.
Louise, England

Tony Martin should be released from prison

Simon Atkinson, UK

I agree Tony Martin should be released from prison and taken to either Broadmoor or Ashworth hospital until he has been assessed and deemed not to be a danger to society and his personality disorder treated. He owned an illegal pump action shotgun and had gun ownership licenses revoked in the past. As one commentator has said already; what if it was a person asking for directions or wanted to use a phone because their car had broken down?
Simon Atkinson, UK

Tony Martin should never have been jailed in the first place. Here is a farmer, who lives out in the countryside and his property had been previously burgled. They should never have broken into his property in the first place!
Michael J, UK

Why is the victim of a crime punished? I don't understand! Two people break into a remote house with the aim to steal everything valuable they can carry and our system supports them?
Wolfie, England

Martin shot a man in the back with an unlicensed weapon, that is wrong. But how do we defend our homes in rural areas where our support from the police is non-existent?
Paul Langshaw, UK

Mr Martin should be acquitted

Steve Smith, UK

I feel so strongly about this subject. Justice hasn't been served - Mr Martin should be acquitted. He found himself in an appalling situation. For what possible reasons was he confronted by these two individuals, IN his HOME, at the dead of night, other than to violate his property or worse himself? Yes, loss of life is a high price to pay, but how much absolute misery do burglars inflict upon the victims whose homes they violate?
Steve Smith, UK (South Yorkshire)

Once you make a decision to violate someone else's property, you must expect to be caught and suffer the consequences. I feel we have gone too far down the road of giving the criminal the right to cry "foul". If you break the law, you give up any such rights. Tony Martin should never have been taken to court, and should be freed and pardoned now. It is high time we had a firm definition of how much force is "reasonable" to defend your property and your own life, and this case has done nothing to give us such a definition.
Keith, UK

It is so sad how easily the public are fooled. He had a loaded shotgun and deliberately killed the youth who so misguidedly entered his property. The Martins of this world will always get the public sympathy as the majority look at the shallow facts rather than the deep ones. Don't be fooled. Martin has got away with murder. The police clearly proved Martin laid in wait and gunned down the intruder in the back.
Viv Wilkins, UK

If someone breaks into your home and you are in mortal fear for your life, then of course you should be allowed to defend yourself. Even if the courts say otherwise, it would be best to defend yourself. Better 5 years in prison then 6 feet under the ground!
Daniel B. Rego, USA

Public opinion has wrongly portrayed Martin as the victim

Rob Murphy, Spain

The Martin case delivers an interesting perspective on the British viewpoint of justice. Justice takes place in the courts and - in Martin's case - justice was done first time around. Public opinion has wrongly portrayed Martin as the victim. This is not the case. Martin took justice into his own hands and should serve the consequences. It is simply absurd for certain sectors of the community to advocate a society in which burglars 'get what they deserve' in a kind of rough justice dealt out by the 'people'. Judgements such as this, which seek to legitimise such behaviour, are fundamentally wrong for the safety and morality of our society.
Rob Murphy, Spain

This man should be released! I have been burgled at least 14 times, squatted in, had my house set on fire, been verbally abused and threatened. No funds are available to make my home more secure; there's no counselling; no insurance means we live in a shell. I am frightened every time I walk out the door, and have had a nervous breakdown. It is time our society gave these brats what they deserve.

I have slept on the sofa with an axe, they were coming in so often! I am not living in a council estate where there is an almost expected turnover of crime, but in a nice middle class area. No magistrate should put these people first. Make them pay back everything, and more! Believe it or not, I have worked with young people, and have loved every minute, but I now hate this attitude that is permeating our society where parents condone their offspring's misbehaviour. My kids grew up in dire circumstances, but I taught them right from wrong!

If people could see the inside of our home, they might feel the same. As it is, it has been three years since I let anyone in, I am so ashamed.
Eileen, Britain

To repeatedly be the victim of burglary must be a terrible experience - but no one 'defends their property' with an unlicenced pump action shotgun and the inclination to use it. Shooting a child burglar in the back as he runs away is not defence but punishment. And is Tony Martin morally opposed to window locks and burglar alarms, I wonder?
Louisa , London UK

Did he have to be beaten as well as robbed, before taking action?

Susan, USA

Poor Mr Martin. What a pity he doesn't live here in the USA. On a self-defence training class I attended at the local Sheriff's department, I was told categorically to kill an intruder, INSIDE my house, after warning that I had a loaded gun ready and would use it to defend myself. No one knows how fearful Tony Martin was for his safety. Did he have to be beaten as well as robbed, before taking action? The police, in both countries, are for the most part unable and unwilling to control or catch criminals. Therefore, you have to be prepared to protect yourself and your property.

The young man who was killed was breaking the law the moment he entered Mr Martin's house. HE chose to break the law, Mr Martin was simply protecting himself and his property. What a pity the law is such an ass that it persists in defending those who perpetrate crimes, rather than the victims seeking to save themselves.
Susan, USA

It still does not give him the right to shoot someone to kill. How about if the police were armed against burglars, and shot someone when trying to apprehend. Would this then be OK - by the sound of most of your letters, it would be. Shoe on the other foot please!
Jenna, UK

As far as I am aware, the law states that it is illegal to kill

Simon C, UK

As far as I am aware, the law states that it is illegal to kill. I have never read a clause that excludes burglars. It is the job of the police to find and arrest the felons and of the courts to convict. That is why we have laws, otherwise it's gung-ho all the way.
Simon C, UK

Tony Martin should be released now, and compensated for his time in prison. Many people have commented how sad it was that a young life was lost in this tragic case, but perhaps we should ask how much misery and suffering of innocent people has been averted by ending this criminal's career. Not to mention the saving to the taxpayer in his rehabilitation had he been caught. The intruders got what they deserved. Mr Martin's unjust imprisonment sends out the wrong signals to criminals - what happened to being "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?
Aldo, UK

He should have served one year in prison for NOT killing both of them.
Graham, England

What if the boy had been 15 years old, or even younger?

DF, UK

What if the boy that Martin killed had been 15 years old, or even younger? Would people then be so in favour of shooting anyone who enters a house uninvited?
DF, UK

Those two men broke into his house knowing that he was at home. Did they expect him to offer them a cup of tea and some cake when he found them? They were old enough to know that what they were doing was wrong and so old enough to pay the price. If Mr Martin was paranoid, well, looks like he had good reason to be. Two against one. In his position I would have done the same thing.
Ranjan SenGupta, Germany/Antigua

Murder is the right verdict. With premeditation. Although I agree with the use of reasonable force, that does not involve firearms or knifes. If he had a gun, it was probably with the intention of using it against intruders. If it is the case, it is indeed premeditation.
Anthony, London, UK

We, here in America, take a different point of view than does the British judiciary. If a person invades another's home for whatever purpose, then we accept that we have the right to defend ourselves and our property, even if that means killing the intruder. I accept this. Unfortunately I believe that Britons are confused about this issue, preferring to give the benefit of the doubt to the criminals even to the extent of providing a nurturing response to them.

The soaring rate of crime and the apparent lawless culture endemic in Britain today call for a different response to what may have been the norm twenty or even ten years ago. Britain needs to accept the criminal climate has changed, probably forever. Until Britain takes a much firmer attitude in its prosecution of crime - accepting it for what it is ie an attack against society - then I believe we will see more episodes like Mr Martin's.
Kenneth Jessett, USA

It is vital that we should be able to defend ourselves and our property

Oli, UK

I'm in complete agreement with many of the people on this page - it is vital that we should be able to defend ourselves and our property if the situation requires it. One thought on this case though - what would have happened if somebody had innocently called upon Mr Martin for directions, or to tried to use a phone? Would they have met the same fate as Fred Barras?
Oli, UK

We have followed the Tony Martin case with growing interest and horror at the way Mr Martin has been treated. We are both teachers of many years experience and we think that the way things have gone in this case are a frightening illustration of the way law and order have broken down. Of course, we are aware that a young man lost his life. Nevertheless, Mr Martin was alone in a remote house and the police were not easily accessible. He had a right to defend his property and the burglars had no right to be there. They were breaking the law and intimidating an innocent homeowner.

Presumably the law would have been more sympathetic if he had been robbed or killed. Has the world gone mad? Are we so politically correct that the innocent can't upset the guilty? Recently we have read that an elderly lady was made to remove barbed wire from her fencing in case a potential burglar hurt himself. We should be like the Americans who allow a homeowner to defend his or her own property. Bring back discipline and social order and allow Tony Martin to go free.
Mena and Roger Digings, England

I have read here that the law is biased in favour of the criminal. Martin was convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter. This makes him, er, a criminal.
George, UK

Criminals who break into your house should have no right whatsoever. This case just offers proof that criminals will be protected at the cost of the victim. Tony Martin should never have gone to jail. This is just absurd. Next we'll probably have health benefits for thieves.
Suresh R, USA

Whatever the case with Mr Martin's sentencing, I'd bet that some young criminals are now just slightly less keen on breaking and entering than they used to be.
Nigel Bennett, York, England

He had no right to play God and decide if another human being should live or die

Liz, England

Today's verdict is a joke and just another case of the system bowing to people power rather than the true events. Tony Martin should not have his sentence reduced to manslaughter. If you wave a loaded gun at someone then you should accept the consequences if they are injured or killed. He had no right to play God and decide if another human being should live or die.
Liz, England

Being in the unfortunate position of having had my own house burgled just last night, I fully sympathise with those who act to defend their property. However any such action has to be measured, appropriate and reasonable - none of which apply to a pump action shotgun! The court of appeal obviously had good evidence presented to it today as to the psychiatric condition of Mr Martin and it is for this reason his sentence was reduced. It saddens me that so many of the comments here suggest that people are seeing it as an endorsement of illegal vigilante behaviour.
Rich, UK

Tony Martin should be released now

Ewan, UK

Burglars do more than steal your property, they steal your feeling of safety and security in your own home and cause fear long after the event. Tony Martin only did what the State is failing to do - protected himself by whatever means were available. He should be released now.
Ewan, UK

The law at present favours the criminal in cases of burglary. Numerous cases have been seen where burglars injured by the householder have successfully sued for damages. The law should be changed so that a person who is within the perimeter of someone's home should be subject to the same law as reasonable defence, as in assault cases. If someone has entered the building then the person has done so at their own risk and they must accept the consequences with no civil liability. Killing someone is not an option but, so long as a householder can demonstrate reasonable justification for any action taken, then the criminal law should not apply. Using a firearm in any instance is not justified and cannot be defended.
Ken Smite, UK

Let's face it, this whole situation was caused by two thieves who only took from society and caused distress, upset and grief. Mr Martin should be treated as a hero for protecting society from these people where our 'justice' system fails to protect us. Release Mr Martin immediately.
Helen, UK

Tony Martin was not defending himself because he wasn't being attacked

Kirsty, UK

I'm absolutely incredulous reading the responses on this forum. Firstly the verdict has been changed to manslaughter because Tony Martin is considered to have a mental disorder, not because there has been any change on the idea of reasonable force. Secondly Tony Martin was not defending himself because he wasn't being attacked. If he was, he couldn't have shot the young lad in the back. Finally, I wasn't aware that it had become acceptable in our society to kill someone as punishment for a crime. He murdered that boy, the only reason that the verdict has been changed is because of his mental disorder. What does that make all the people on here who think he did the right thing?

If you think that the justice system in this country is inadequate then do something about it. Don't just take the law into your own hands.
Kirsty, UK

This man should never have been convicted in the first place. This country has lost all sense of right and wrong. We spend far too much time thinking about criminals' rights, totally forgetting the victims.
Christine Sims, UK

Do you abandon your home to any violent thugs?

Terry Roberts, United Kingdom

Half a victory for common sense. A half-hearted step in the right direction. Consider for a moment if the persons involved swapped places. The 16 year-old, under the influence of drugs and alcohol would certainly not have been convicted of murder. His older colleague in crime would not have been convicted of murder. Most likely neither would have been convicted of manslaughter, nor of causing him serious injury. There are enough precedents.

Before you can claim self-defence (unless you are a burglar) you have to make steps to escape. But in your own home, where can you go, where can you retreat? Do you abandon your home to any violent thugs? Is this the message the Courts wish to send out? Who are these pompous individuals who sit in judgement, whose only experience of violence and burglary is in the 'civilised atmosphere' of a courtroom safe from any violence, threat of violence or intimidation of any sort? Not only that, but the defendants are on their best behaviour. Tony Martin should be, and always should have been a free man.
Terry Roberts, United Kingdom

To suggest that the punishment for breaking and entering should be death is rather hysterical

Jill, UK

You are all naming Martin as the 'victim' - but he was the one who took a human life! To suggest that the punishment for breaking and entering should be death is rather hysterical. I thought that the original verdict of murder was correct - after all the definition of manslaughter is killing without intent, and blasting a boy with a shotgun is hardly that.
Jill, UK

I think the courts have done the right thing to lower the charge to manslaughter, but they should have released him on a time served basis. If you can't protect yourself / property then it is no use waiting on the police in a rural area. I have known of people who have been burgled and the police don't turn up until 24 hours after the event (in an urban area). I don't blame the police as they are under pressure from government targets, but if you can't protect yourself in your own home, where can you protect yourself. This country is full of don'ts, when will the government target socially unacceptable behaviour, so that we don't have to take drastic action to protect ourselves?
Martin, UK

This case was a burglar's charter

Brian Robertson, UK

No justice has not been served. Tony Martin should never have been convicted. No longer is an Englishman's home his castle. The judge trying the original case said, "this sends out a powerful message to would be burglars". The judge was not telling the truth, it sends out a message that the State is not on the side of honest people. This case was a burglar's charter.
Brian Robertson, UK

Wading through the comments of other correspondents, I think I only detected one dissenting voice against an overwhelming tide of outrage that this guy should have been charged, let alone locked up, in the first place. Mr Martin may be slightly mad, but that doesn't make him bad and he was only dangerous to know if you happened to be a burglar. The law is an ass, it needs to get some perspective, and it needs to listen to some popular sentiment. I'm not a hang 'em & flog 'em supporter but no-one can have the slightest sympathy with the fate of the two burglars. I have none.
Mark H, UK

This is a triumph for common sense. It was outrageous that Mr Martin was found guilty of murder. Fred Barras shouldn't have been in Mr Martin's house in the first place. Of course he didn't deserve to die but who can blame Mr Martin for protecting himself and his property. The law should protect victims of crime, not the perpetrators.
Duncan Elliott, UK

The burglar got exactly what he deserved. If he hadn't been illegally in the man's house then no harm would have come to him. Being unable to defend yours and your families lives in your own home should be made a crime. It's stupid and ancient laws like this that are partly the reason why I don't live in the UK anymore. At least in Texas I can rest assured that if I have a burglar in my home then I'll be able to use deadly force if necessary to protect my wife and I.
Ash Newell, Texas, USA (Ex-Pat Brit)

The cynical attitude of the judiciary and police force are on the same level as the motivation of genuine criminals

Peter Sykes, UK

The original conviction was the result of the cynicism by both the police and Criminal Prosecution Service. The police were aggrieved at being exposed as being, at best, ineffective and were determined to exact their revenge. The motto being - we know we can't do our job properly but heaven help those who try to help themselves. The CPS adopted the tried and tested technique of launching a prosecution against a soft target (a law-abiding man) employing a mixture of dubious evidence and character assassination. The motto here being - he might or might not have committed a crime but he is just the sort of nutcase who could commit one. The cynical attitude of this country's judiciary and police force are on the same level as the motivation of genuine criminals.
Peter Sykes, UK

Anyone like Tony Martin who thinks that shooting dead burglars is reasonable force deserves to be locked up for much longer. If it was reasonable in the eyes of the law then we would have much harsher verdicts delivered upon convicted burglars. We don't even have the death penalty for murder. Why should the likes of Martin be able to administer their own conviction and punishment? I remember the case of a British tourist lost in Florida asking for directions who was shot dead by a homeowner because they suspected he could be a burglar. Do people want that sort of law and order? No, so lets leave to the police and the courts
Joe, UK

The victim in this has been Tony Martin all along. If the lad hadn't been trespassing in the first place, he would still be alive. I do not believe it is wrong to defend your property in this way - especially if it keeps happening. In a gut reaction some people are likely to do things to an intruder that they would not normally do - fear does that to you. What happened to the other lad who was shot at? Was he charged with anything? Trespassing at least? I hope so.
Sandra, UK

I'm frankly appalled by the people who think that he should have got off scot-free

Peter, UK

I think manslaughter is the right verdict in this case. However I'm frankly appalled by the people who think that he should have got off scot-free. Even if shooting the intruder was justified as reasonable force, why did Mr Martin run away from the scene and go in to hiding? Why didn't he call the police (and send for an ambulance for the person he'd shot)? You have the right to use reasonable force. This doesn't give you a right to shoot first and ask questions later.
Peter, UK

Justice has not been served. Tony Martin has done nothing wrong. It was dark, they were inside his house, there were two of them. They were intent on ill-doing. If they did not want shooting, they should not have been there. What about people who have heart attacks when confronted by intruders in such situations? This is one of the grossest miscarriages of justice ever. Who poses the biggest threat to society?
Ian, UK

He should be released immediately and given a huge compensation for this miscarriage of justice! Criminals are getting away with far too much these days! Why is it our nation is taken to a bloody war in order to combat an attack against another country, but people here continually get treated like criminals, and the real criminals get away with stuff? I'm getting very very fed up with the way things are declining legally, morally and judicially.
Adam Streiser, United Kingdom

I would like to know just how a man is supposed to defend himself against a greater number of fitter and younger attackers

P Johnson, England

People are killed regularly by burglars. Recently there was a case of a young woman who died of a heart attack upon returning home to a burgled home. I would like to know just how a man is supposed to defend himself against a greater number of fitter and younger attackers. A single blow to the head can be fatal! We should be allowed to defend ourselves without question in our own homes.
P Johnson, England

On the facts of the case as stated originally I agreed with the jury, however, it seems that yet again, lawyers and the legal system did a poor job, so the appeal is upheld. To answer the question about a shotgun licence, I understand Martin's had be revoked some time earlier after another incident.
John E, UK

I'd like to know what liberal Phil would do he found two thugs in his house. Ancient English law says that your home is your castle
Oliver Hanson, UK

Yes, justice has been served. Manslaughter is the correct verdict. It was ludicrous that Tony Martin was found guilty of murder, but let us not forget the following, as your correspondent Eric Deveraux obviously has. The judge at the original trial did not allow the jury to find Tony Martin guilty of manslaughter, only murder or to find him not guilty. Given the evidence which some of your correspondents admit they did not see and the later revelations that Tony Martin had convictions for illegal possession of firearms, the only option given to the jury was a verdict of guilty of murder. It is all too easy for the right-wingers among us to say that the burglars "deserved" it, but I do not want a situation where people discharging firearms willy-nilly. What precedent will this set in a society where crimes involving firearms are rocketing? Let Tony Martin out in a few months when he has truly learnt is lesson.
Phil, UK

The rule of law must be upheld and it no longer appears to that it has been in this case

Dave G, UK

To an outside observer, this appears to be a case of the appeal court pandering to popular opinion. In essence, they seem to have retired the case, based on a different defence to that given in the trial, without the prosecution being allowed to fully counter the new defence.

As for Tony Martin, a man who arms himself and knowingly shoots an unarmed youth in the back deserves considerably more than 2 1/2 years in jail. At the time, the doomsayers predicted that the verdict would lead to complete lawlessness in the countryside. None of this has come to pass. The rule of law must be upheld and it no longer appears to that it has been in this case.
Dave G, UK

He should never been sent to prison. I am so grateful I wasn't on that jury being glared at by a load of henchmen. If that wasn't intimidation!!! Our juries should be located in police stations and the court case transmitted by video to them.
Graham, UK

The pendulum has swung too far. Tony Martin should be released now. His 'crime' was to protect his property and was punished for it. Has the world gone mad? It is not the fault of the police but of the judicial system in this country. Break the Law and you are afforded the full protection of the Law, become a victim and the Law will victimise you further. It is time for Justice to prevail in this once green and pleasant land!
Neil Ockenden, U.K.

It is clear that he still used an unreasonable degree of force and killed a 16 year-old boy

Jon, UK

The question here is did this main behave in a 'reasonable' manner and use an appropriate level of force? The original jury didn't think so and the appeal judges seem to have agreed. His appeal rested on his original defence having been conducted wrongly, not on the his actions and how the jury interpreted them. Yes, if his defence had been handled correctly in the first place it might not have been a murder conviction but perhaps manslaughter, but it is clear that he still used an unreasonable degree of force and killed a 16 year-old boy. And no, I don't condone burglary either.
Jon, UK

Tony Martin should never have been put in prison and is sadly a victim of political correctness gone wrong. It was recently reported in a newspaper that a 90 year-old pensioner was asked to remove barbed wire that surrounded her garden fence because it could cause an accident should anyone try to climb over. This woman was burgled 6 times in 18 months and after putting up the wire was no longer burgled. However the council demanded she remove the wire to protect the burglars from injury! Its about time people realised that someone's home is their castle and they have every right to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Sharon B, UK

There is a difference between defending one's property, and shooting to kill. No matter what Tony Martin thought (and it is now clear that he has a personality disorder) the fact is that he shot and killed an unarmed 16 year old. Of course he should be in prison. It is probably correct that the verdict has been reduced to manslaughter, but there is no way Martin should go free until his new sentence is served. To say that he should have not been found guilty is to give a licence to kill - and a very dangerous precedent could have been set. And I have to agree with the comment from Chris - surely any sort of gun licence should be refused if the applicant has a paranoid personality disorder?
Claire, UK

Why was someone with a "personality disorder" allowed to have a shotgun licence?
Chris, UK

He achieved his warped ambition and was justly convicted of murder

Lawrence Stone, UK

By all accounts, Mr. Martin waited in armed ambush night after night for the opportunity to shoot someone breaking into his house. He achieved his warped ambition and was justly convicted of murder. All the gung-ho rednecks who supported him must be gleeful today, because it now looks as if you can literally get away with murder. My views will be in a minority here, I suspect, as this vile judgement is applauded by miscellany of slavering ghouls.
Lawrence Stone, UK

The criminal records of each of the burglars shows that all three had violent tendencies. Facing a choice between being caught and making an escape, I have no doubt that they would have been prepared to inflict similar injuries on Mr Martin. If they hadn't gone out that night intent on getting their kicks from making another human being's life a misery, the tragic death would never have happened. If you live by the sword, you run the risk of dying by it.
Jared Oyston, England

So you only get five years for killing a sixteen year-old in cold blood with a shotgun. Where is the justice for the lad's family? I certainly don't think there is a place in our society for bigots with guns. They should throw away the key.
Frank, UK

Faced with intruders with unknown but, fair to assume, malicious intent, I defy any of this man's judges in a similar situation to have done other than try their best to ensure that the intrusion was repulsed by whatever means were available. On that basis, what Martin did should not have been judged 'unreasonable'.
Allan J, UK

Tony Martin should be released now and given compensation for a miscarriage of justice. Anybody that breaks into another person's house deserves to be shot.
Eric Deveraux, UK (London)

I suspect that the law on using force against intruders will not be any clearer than it was before

Kevin Christian, Germany

I suspect that the law on using force against intruders will not be any clearer than it was before. Such cases in the future are likely to lead to the use of 'plea bargaining' by the CPS. One point that has astounded me is that the court of appeal accepted that Mr Martin's case was not properly presented at his trial - something they have not entertained in the past, usually telling appellants they couldn't have two bites of the cherry because their defence team did a poor job. This is for me seems to be the major move forward from this decision.
Kevin Christian, Germany

I still think he should never have been convicted in the first place. The law on self-defence should be reviewed and allow those who might otherwise be beaten or killed the right to defend themselves. As far as I'm concerned, once someone attacks you or your property, they immediately forfeit all rights before the law. The more we fight back against attackers, burglars etc, the less likely those who would usually commit these crimes will be to carry them out. Martin did the right thing.
Mick, UK

It's interesting that the court actually upheld the original jury's decision that Martin used unreasonable force to defend himself. The charge was reduced to reflect the fact that the personality disorder he suffers from meant he was legally 'insane' at the time of the shooting. The decision has no precedent value whatsoever on the point of what is reasonable force.
Patrick, UK

Tony Martin's life has been destroyed because two yobs decided to invade his property and he tried to defend himself

Paul Jemetta, UK

Tony Martin's life has been destroyed because two yobs decided to invade his property and he tried to defend himself. The message of the original verdict was that the householder should simply let the burglar get away with it. The message of today's verdict is that a householder can use force to resist a burglar but they will be seen as equals when criminality and punishment are assessed.

Tony Martin is an unfortunate individual who reacted in panic to yet another attack on his home. He did what most people would like to do but dare not because the criminal justice system in this country is now geared to protecting the burglar and the mugger and the yob. I believe that Tony Martin was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. The law need to be changed to protect householders against those who seek to invade their property. Tony Martin should be freed at once and pardoned.
Paul Jemetta, UK

In the USA he would have been in the right to start with. We cannot have laws to protect criminals.
Nick, Bedford UK

I find it totally outrageous that a man confronted by two burglars (in his own home) is found guilty of taking whatever means at his disposal to protect himself, his family and his property. The guilty parties are the burglars themselves. If they wish to indulge in criminal acts, then they should accept the consequent risks, with NO limitation! In my view, Tony Martin should be released immediately and compensated (handsomely) by the government for the time he has already spent in jail.
George Pierce, Singapore

What would have happened the 16 year-old had a gun?

Helen, West Yorkshire

I agree totally with protecting your property, especially with this case. This man lived in an isolated house in the countryside. What would have happened the 16 year-old had a gun? Possibly Tony Martin would be dead.
Helen, West Yorkshire

As the victim of two burglaries I would almost certainly shoot to protect hearth and home. Tony Martin should be released now.
Mike Clarke,

He didn't do anything wrong. Why is he in prison anyway? It's the professional risk of a thief to be punished in one way or another. Let him go now!
Volker Dornheim, England (ex Germany)

Tony Martin should be released immediately - his only crime was to defend himself against burglars who, for all he knew, could have been armed themselves.
John B, UK

The balance seems to have swung too far in favour of the criminal

Andy Millward, UK

There's a fine line here between offering an open invitation to thieves since police can't or won't intervene to protect householders, and condoning acts of violence in the name of protecting property. What constitutes "reasonable force" in protecting your property should be clearly defined so nobody can be in any doubt of the consequences (a) of breaking and entering, and (b) of taking vengeance.

That said, the balance seems to have swung too far in favour of the criminal, and Tony Martin has been treated very harshly. In my view, he should be released on parole immediately.
Andy Millward, UK

He should never have served any time in jail. He was only defending his property and this should be the right of everyone in this country. The people who broke into Martins house had criminal records up to their necks. Personally I think they got what they deserved.
M. Jackson, UK

In the USA people shoot and kill countless of burglars and intruders. It's hard to say, but they shouldn't have burgled his property!!!
Mike, UK

I for one am sick of being forced by law to take whatever's coming to me

Rob Harris, UK

Not having access to the details, it's difficult to say whether the verdict is sound or not. In terms of the right to defence against criminals though, I think the judgment is a step in the right direction. I for one am sick of being forced by law to take whatever's coming to me. Like most people I am not a large man, and so I do not have the luxury of being able to administer "reasonable force" with my bare hands. It's about time this insane situation was reviewed, especially for women, who are currently totally unprotected by law. The situation is so bad that we are unable even to count on passers by for help, as even sufficiently powerful bystanders will generally not risk being judged to have used unreasonable force.
Rob Harris, UK

The people in this case knew it was wrong and simply should not have been there

Laurence Prime, Scotland

In broad terms I very much applaud the change of sentence and have always felt that the original verdict was unjust. My view is that if you go inside other people's dwelling houses (not just on their land), where they have a right to feel secure and may have family, you know it is wrong and should expect that from time to time the consequences could be unpleasant. The people in this case knew it was wrong and simply should not have been there.
Laurence Prime, Scotland

The fact is they were never going to let Martin free as the courts would lose too much face and the judges are not that brave. Tony Martin has lost his home and his life through no fault of his own. He did not ask for Barras and co. to come to his house. Martin would have been better off claiming to have been a member of the IRA.
Philip Levy, UK

No. He should never have been locked up to start with. Its easy to say in the light of day but if you get woken up in the dead of night, in an isolated location by people deliberately breaking into your property, and you are scared and full of fear then the intruders should not be surprised if they got shot at.
Roger, UK

A life sentence for defending one's own property was always absurd

Richard, London, U

Without a doubt, justice has been served. A life sentence for defending one's own property was always absurd. It's about time that British justice started supporting the victim rather than the criminal and this to me seems like a step in the right direction.
Richard, London, UK

Absolutely. Tony Martin lived on his own and in fear of burglars. Both of the burglars chose to break the law and suffered the consequences. It is very sad that a young life has been lost but those of us who live in the rural community understand Mr Martin's actions. Maybe some good will come of it and some people will think twice before breaking into someone's house.
Jon H, UK

It's at least a step in the right direction!
Christine, UK