"Have a go heros" ???

Status
Not open for further replies.
It appears that they're bringing the "reasonable and prudent person" style of thought into the situation.

One change is that it reduces the knee-jerk behavior of some police and prosecutors, where the Good Guy has faced hostility from them about self defense.

Brit-bashings get deleted, by the way. :)
 
I guess they havent seen Dirty Harry and thus have missed the 'Make my day' title for the laws.

As always, the devil's in the details and only time will tell exactly how this law will be applied (laying in wait could be construed to include having a loaded shotgun at the ready).

Kharn
 
Since Brits are not permitted to own firearms, this means they may now bite the knee caps of their attackers.
 
Text of the article

Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution.

In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Act will give them greater legal protection

They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that "heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation "as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them.
Article continues
advertisement

However, attacking a fleeing criminal with a weapon is not permitted nor is lying in wait to ambush them.

The new laws follow a growing public campaign for people to be given the right to defend themselves and their own homes in the wake of a number of high profile cases.

In 2000, Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, was sent to prison for manslaughter for shooting an intruder in his home.

Earlier this year, Tony Singh, a shopkeeper, found himself facing a murder charge after he defended himself against an armed robber who tried to steal his takings. During the struggle the robber received a single fatal stab wound to the heart with his own knife.

The Crown Prosecution Service eventually decided Mr Singh should not be charged.

Until now people have had to prove in court that they acted in self defence but the changes mean police and the Crown Prosecution Service will decide on cases before this stage.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that people would be protected legally if they defend themselves "instinctively”; they fear for their own safety or that of others; and the level of force used is not excessive or disproportionate.

He added the changes in law were designed to ensure the criminal justice system was weighted in favour of the victim.

Mr Straw – and other Labour ministers – have previously repeatedly blocked attempts by opposition MPs to give greater protection to householders.

In 2004 Tony Blair promised to review the existing legislation after he admitted there was "genuine public concern” about the issue.

But his pledge was dropped weeks later after the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke concluded that the current law was "sound”.

Two Private Member’s Bills on the issue were tabled by the Tories around the time of the 2005 general election, but both were sunk by the Government.

In 2004, a Tory Bill designed to give the public the right to forcibly tackle burglars was also rejected.

The new self defence law, which came into force yesterday, is contained in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and was announced by Mr Straw last September.

He is understood to have decided new laws were necessary after he was involved in four "have-a go’’ incidents, which included chasing and restraining muggers near his south London home.

Opposition leaders said it offered nothing new and was merely the latest policy designed to appeal to core Tory voters.

In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Act will give them greater legal protection.

Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, said: "This is a typical Labour con – it will give no greater protection to householders confronted by burglars because it’s nothing more than a re-statement of the existing case law.”

Mr Straw said: "The justice system must not only work on the side of people who do the right thing as good citizens, but also be seen to work on their side.

"The Government strongly supports the right of law abiding people to defend themselves, their families and their property with reasonable force. This law will help to make sure that that right is upheld and that the criminal justice system is firmly weighted in favour of the victim.

"Dealing with crime is not just the responsibility of the police, courts and prisons; it’s the responsibility of all of us. Communities with the lowest crime and the greatest safety are the ones with the most active citizens with a greater sense of shared values, inspired by a sense of belonging and duty to others, who are empowered by the state and are also supported by it – in other words, making a reality of justice.

"These changes in the law will make clear – victims of crime, and those who intervene to prevent crime, should be treated with respect by the justice system. We do not want to encourage vigilantism, but there can be no justice in a system which makes the victim the criminal."

It came as it emerged that homeowners could have to wait up to three days after reporting a crime to see a police officer, according to a leaked draft of the Policing Green Paper.

It sets out new national standards for local policing for all 43 forces cross England and Wales.

Callers to the police will be given set times within which officers will attend an incident.

The paper says that this will be "within three hours it if requires policing intervention or three days if there is less immediate need for a police presence."

However, the Home Office would not comment on the plans
Click to expand...
 
Qu'elle suprise,

The "change in the law" which actually isn't a change of any sort, just guidance to the police and Crown Prosecution Service, comes about on the lead in to the UK elections where Labour are expected to get a seriously beating.

Pure coincidence, considering Jack Straw (the Home Secretary) has been the one continually blocking this move for the last 6 years.......
 
Sure you can shoot or stab a criminal but they better be the one bringing a gun or knife into the fight since Subjects are not allowed to legally own either for the most part.
 
"The new laws follow a growing public campaign for people to be given the right to defend themselves..."
No such thing as natural rights over there it seems.
 
It grants no new rights nor does it actually change the law in regards to self defence or 'citizens arrests'.

Since 1967 we have had a statutory power to use force to arrest criminals or help the police to arrest criminals.

What has changed is that now the Crown cannot bring a prosecution against the victim unless the Attorney General decides that the force used was grossly out of proportion to the threat faced. Before what has happened is the police have put up their hands and said in effect 'we dont make judgements about peoples' guilt we prepare a case file and hand it to the CPS to make the charging decision' The CPS then simply decide whether there is a good chance of prosecution or not.

Now the victim is spared the trauma of having a jury decide.

(most genuine victims were found not guilty by their peers anyway so why expose them to the trauma of being accused just to let them clear their names?)

I see it as a good thing.

ACTUALLY DISREGARD the above. That is how they drafted the original Bill. That would be far to simply and effective for the current Parliament.

All the new law does (on first look) is pull together various pieces of case law and put them all in one place.

Hopefully it should help end pointless prosecutions of obvious victims, but by adding a 'proportional' element to the equation it might just complicate things even more.
 
Last edited:
expletive!

In 2000, Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer, was sent to prison for manslaughter for shooting an intruder in his home.

Earlier this year, Tony Singh, a shopkeeper, found himself facing a murder charge after he defended himself against an armed robber who tried to steal his takings. During the struggle the robber received a single fatal stab wound to the heart with his own knife.

The Crown Prosecution Service eventually decided Mr Singh should not be charged.
Click to expand...

Martin probably has Irish/English ancestry and Singh probably has Asian ancestry and wears a Turban, this was another politically correct decision
where race plays a factor, jail for the white guy and freedom for the "oppressed minority"
as they say over there RUBBISH!:barf:
 
Martin probably has Irish/English ancestry and Singh probably has Asian ancestry and wears a Turban, this was another politically correct decision where race plays a factor, jail for the white guy and freedom for the "oppressed minority" as they say over there RUBBISH!
Click to expand...
Can you cite anything to back up this pointless slur?
 
anarchris, most likely less a racial thing and more likely it was personal opinion on the part of the authorities.

It looks like the intent of the new writing is to take this personal opinion thing out of the equation. Go by the law, not by whether or not a prosecuting authority is personally against guns or against violent self-defense.
 
Tony Martin got jail, and the surviving attacker sued and I believe won after claiming that Martin maimed him for life and he wouldnt be able to make a living. Of course the SAME GUY had robbed Martin over a dozen times, and the authorities did NOTHING to stop it.
I believe this may do something to curatail crime, but the reality is most honest people are helpless, and both sides know this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
legal right to defend in England
Replies
23
Views
1K
Beagle-zebub
B
D
  • Locked
Knife Crime on Rise In UK
Replies
10
Views
618
Art Eatman
A
P
  • Locked
UK: Prisons Warned of "Wasp" Diver's Knife
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
hso
hso
Y
  • Locked
Woman warned after scaring off intruders with knife
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Owen Sparks
O
A
  • Locked
Welcome Home a Hero!
Replies
1
Views
392
capbuster
C
Back
Top