what the UK POlice ADVICE ON SELF DEFENCE

[nagarifle]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... lders.html


Householders and the use of force against intruders

Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers
What is the purpose of this statement?

It is a rare and frightening prospect to be confronted by an intruder in your own home. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Chief Constables are responding to public concern over the support offered by the law and confusion about householders defending themselves. We want a criminal justice system that reaches fair decisions, has the confidence of law-abiding citizens and encourages them actively to support the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime.

Wherever possible you should call the police. The following summarises the position when you are faced with an intruder in your home, and provides a brief overview of how the police and CPS will deal with any such events.

Does the law protect me? What is 'reasonable force'?

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements 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 selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence.

Do I have to wait to be attacked?

No, not if you are in your own home and in fear for yourself or others. In those circumstances the law does not require you to wait to be attacked before using defensive force yourself.

What if the intruder dies?

If you have acted in reasonable self-defence, as described above, and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed, there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted. However, if, for example:

having knocked someone unconscious, you then decided to further hurt or kill them to punish them; or
you knew of an intended intruder and set a trap to hurt or to kill them rather than involve the police,
you would be acting with very excessive and gratuitous force and could be prosecuted.

What if I chase them as they run off?

This situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable. However, you are still allowed to use reasonable force to recover your property and make a citizen's arrest. You should consider your own safety and, for example, whether the police have been called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not.

Will you believe the intruder rather than me?

The police weigh all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place. We hope that everyone understands that the police have a duty to investigate incidents involving a death or injury. Things are not always as they seem. On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers.

How would the police and CPS handle the investigation and treat me?

In considering these cases Chief Constables and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Head of the CPS) are determined that they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible. In some cases, for instance where the facts are very clear, or where less serious injuries are involved, the investigation will be concluded very quickly, without any need for arrest. In more complicated cases, such as where a death or serious injury occurs, more detailed enquiries will be necessary. The police may need to conduct a forensic examination and/or obtain your account of events.

To ensure such cases are dealt with as swiftly and sympathetically as possible, the police and CPS will take special measures namely:

An experienced investigator will oversee the case; and
If it goes as far as CPS considering the evidence, the case will be prioritised to ensure a senior lawyer makes a quick decision.
It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders.

[Anand]

Am I mistaken or have Her Majesties Police finally grown some b@11s?
Nothing like support from law enforcement to the law abiding citizens to boost confidence and morale!
Anand

[nagarifle]

no its real and its good

[Vikram]

Regardless of what one reads in news papers, law does act with commonsense in UK in most cases. One must realise that firearms are not issues for self-defence in UK. I think that is a real shame. However, if one were to have it handy and use it in a justifiable context, that is fine with the law. They actually listen to what you say.


Best-
Vikram

[brihacharan]

Regardless of what one reads in news papers, law does act with commonsense in UK in most cases. One must realise that firearms are not issues for self-defence in UK. I think that is a real shame. However, if one were to have it handy and use it in a justifiable context, that is fine with the law. They actually listen to what you say.
Best-
Vikram

> For a UK citizen this is very re-assuring.
> Wonder if folks in India can expect such a view from the lawmakers?
Briha

[nagarifle]

Regardless of what one reads in news papers, law does act with commonsense in UK in most cases. One must realise that firearms are not issues for self-defence in UK. I think that is a real shame. However, if one were to have it handy and use it in a justifiable context, that is fine with the law. They actually listen to what you say.
Best-
Vikram

> For a UK citizen this is very re-assuring.
> Wonder if folks in India can expect such a view from the lawmakers?
Briha

eh smoking the funny stuff??

[shooter]

Regardless of what one reads in news papers, law does act with commonsense in UK in most cases. One must realise that firearms are not issues for self-defence in UK. I think that is a real shame. However, if one were to have it handy and use it in a justifiable context, that is fine with the law. They actually listen to what you say.


Best-
Vikram

Request to viks as a mod: please move this to humour section.

Man is jailed for killing robber

Five years in prison for acting in self-defence

Myleene Klass warned after brandishing knife to deter intruders

The famous tony martin case. Google him

Farm tenant arrested after burglars shot was 'plagued by break-ins'

Father arrested for murder over knifing suspected burglar

Householders arrested after 'burglar' is killed


In the following video, please check out dialouges at 2:20 and 8:40 about peoples views about self defence. The man in the blue shirt, made to look like a fool is the fonder of armbritain, a forum for right to self defence, similar to NAGRI.

[youtube][/youtube]


I can go on and on with a list of news items about people arrested and/or sentenced for defending themselves. Good on everyone saying we are allowed to defend ourselves but the truth is a common man is not. All depends on what one means by self defence. "stand your ground" and castle dotrine do not apply in the uk.
"reasonable force" has no definition. I showed crowd response in the video because people in india need to understand that quoting these fancy websites and/or the law doesnt mean jacks**t because a jury of common people determines guilt.

For most people a use of a gun against a person with a crowbar wouldnt be "reasonable". Death for breaking in or burglary is looked down upon in society. Dont forget in the UK even Osama, Ajmal kasab, afzal guru or the delhi gand rapist or nithari or all paedophiles would NOT be given death penalty so imagine the "rights" of a burglar/home intruder.

The only thing that deserves death penalty in england is planning (not trying or doing but just planning) any harm (not necessarily physical harm; but even trying to remove monarchy) to the royal family. Google high treason. And before coming back to me stating that high treason doesnt constitute death penalty, please note that very recently, european parliament had to order UK to remove death penalty for high treason as it was against human rights. This was because in principle, a person who killed one million Subjects couldnt det death but just planning to hurt or dethrone the royal family meant death. So please spare me the "good old common sense" in the british law.

[nagarifle]

the question is, did the policy came out after the all the events as pointed out by shooter or before?

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... islation1/

o “have a go heroes” need greater protection from criminal prosecution?

Full print version, including charts and tables

There has been considerable media coverage in recent years of householders who have been prosecuted after taking action against intruders.

In 2000 Tony Martin was convicted of murder (later reduced to manslaughter) after shooting a burglar. In 2009 fresh attention was drawn to the issue when Munir Hussain was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after chasing a group of intruders from his home and beating one of them with a cricket bat. Cases such as these, in particular the perceived treatment of victims as criminals, cause public outcry and attract a great deal of media attention. Some have therefore called for changes to the law of self-defence so as to give householders greater protection from criminal prosecution in these circumstances. But would such changes really improve public perceptions?

The law currently allows people to use “reasonable force” to protect themselves, others or property, to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) says that a householder who does only what he “honestly and instinctively believes is necessary in the heat of the moment” is likely to be acting lawfully and in self-defence. If, however, a householder finds himself in the dock, the jury must consider the following questions:

Was the use of force necessary?
If so, was the particular force used reasonable?
The Conservatives have pledged to give householders greater legal protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders in their homes. They argue that the concept of “reasonable force” is unclear and that prosecutions should only be brought where the actions involved were "grossly disproportionate”. An ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph, which is running a campaign to give householders greater rights to defend themselves, suggested that 79 per cent of all voters support such a change.

However, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats consider that the current law works well and that adequate protection is provided by “the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the good sense of the jury”. Paul Mendelle QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, has expressed concerns that the Conservatives’ proposed change could encourage vigilantism and would effectively sanction extrajudicial punishment. The current law is also supported by Michael Wolkind QC, who acted as defence counsel for both Tony Martin and Munir Hussain, and Keir Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Starmer said that there were “many cases, some involving death, where no prosecutions are brought”.

Self-defence in Ireland
Ireland is currently considering amendments to its self-defence law. The Law Reform Commission has suggested that the current “reasonableness” test be replaced with a “minimum threshold” test, and that a householder should be under no duty to retreat from an attack within their home, even where they could do so with complete safety.
Contrary to popular belief, Munir Hussain did not actually raise self-defence at his trial: his (unsuccessful) defence was instead that the intruder’s injuries had not been inflicted by him at all but by a group of youths who had come to his aid. However, even if self-defence had been raised, it is arguable that even under the Conservatives’ “grossly disproportionate” test, Hussain would still have
been prosecuted and convicted.

The perceived injustice for many was not simply his prosecution, but the fact that he initially received a custodial sentence, whereas the intruder he caught did
not: despite having some 50 previous convictions, he was found unfit to plead on the basis of his injuries and given a supervision order. His accomplices are still at large.

Given the rarity and nature of prosecutions against householders who attack intruders, is it right to assume
that public disquiet regarding the treatment of “have a go heroes” would actually be addressed by self-defence reforms? Or does the real problem lie with the policing and sentencing response to such cases?
If these issues are left unaddressed, there may be a limit to the impact any self-defence reforms made in isolation would have.

How many cases?
An “informal trawl” by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had attacked intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. Only 7 of those appeared to have resulted from domestic burglaries.
Examples of prosecutions included a case where a man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.
Examples of decisions not to prosecute included a case where a woman took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull.

[airgun_novice]

[SNIP]

> For a UK citizen this is very re-assuring.
> Wonder if folks in India can expect such a view from the lawmakers?
Briha

Since we are a de facto franchisee of British Law - suppose some smart lawyer can present the same once "antecedent" sets in and will thus get "adopted/ accepted by antecedent" in India.

However, I read enough vagueness in what is printed. Too much onus lies on the victim to prove that the reaction was well within the ambit of law. Plus am not clear if that actually eases the procedure to get arms license for HM's subjects. Also remember the British still cling on to the Castle Doctrine, albeit reluctantly, which we Indians had copied over as Fundamental Right to Property but was done away by Mrs. G long ago. Hence the saying - (An English-) Man's own Home is his Castle. Notice how the language of cop changes once the attacker steps outside the victim's "property" above.

In short my Q would be -

If the attacker runs away at the time seeing that I am alert or armed, then what should my "appropriate level of response" be, considering that he can/ will return with greater force and catch me off guard or unarmed ? After all, I am not supposed to draw finer judgmental lines - that is the Tommy's job, right ?

So methinks if the news is blimey true then in Mumbai jargon - "Woh saalaa yedaa banaake pedhaa khilaa rahaa hai" In QC English - "Bloody Status Quo".

[brihacharan]

[SNIP]

> For a UK citizen this is very re-assuring.
> Wonder if folks in India can expect such a view from the lawmakers?
Briha

Since we are a de facto franchisee of British Law - suppose some smart lawyer can present the same once "antecedent" sets in and will thus get "adopted/ accepted by antecedent" in India.

So methinks if the news is blimey true then in Mumbai jargon - "Woh saalaa yedaa banaake pedhaa khilaa rahaa hai" In QC English - "Bloody Status Quo".

> The merit of a "LAW" lies in its "Ambiguity"
> Which translates into "How You Interpret It"!
> It all depends on which side of the fence is the attorney sitting "Prosecution or Defense"???
> It requires a very "Enlightened Jury" to weigh the pros & cons to arrive at a Just Verdict.
> However in matters of State Vs Citizen - Its more of "Deductive Logic" that rules the roost.....
> EG:
* Men drink water - Asses drink water....
* Therefore Men are Asses!!!
> Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury - I Rest.....
Briha

[nagarifle]

nay the law is an ass

[Hammerhead]

Post needed a lift , related to UK

Gun crime soars by 35%

[created] | [updated]

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.

Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise

and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

With new recording procedures taken into account the actual overall rise was just 2%, the Home Office said.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offences.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

"The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets."

Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighbourhood policing", he added.

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said the figures must prompt "a new, tougher approach" towards people who carry guns.

"Gangs which use and glorify guns as status symbols must be relentlessly targeted by the police," he added.

Home Office statistics showed gun crime has soared by nearly 600% since 1978 - when there were 1,437 firearms offences.

Gun crime has also increased by 65% since 1996, the year before Labour came to power.

Publishing today's figures, Home Office minister John Denham said: "I am concerned at the significant rise that we have seen in firearm offences.

"The number of male homicide victims of shootings was up 41% on the previous year and the proportion of crime in which firearms were used increased from 0.3% to 0.4%.

"We announced earlier this week that we would be introducing a five-year minimum sentence for possession of a firearm as well as new offences to tighten up the law on air weapons and replica firearms.

"The Home Secretary is holding a round table meeting tomorrow with key groups to make sure we are doing all we can to tackle gun crime."

He went on: "The overall crime picture shows a lot of progress.

"We must target our efforts on those areas that have not been moving in the right direction."

Domestic burglary figures increased 7.9% (or increased 5% when adjusted), figures which are likely to embarrass ministers in the wake of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor's comments on jailing burglars.

Drug offences rose 12.3% and robbery was up 14.5% (up 13% adjusted).

The number of homicide victims killed by firearms increased 32%, or 23 cases, in the year to April 2002.

Overall there was a 1% rise in the number of homicides to 858 in England and Wales.

Violence against the person soared by 28% in the three months to September last year, which the Home Office adjusted to a 4% rise.

Over the same period sex offences were up 25.6%, but ministers said both crime categories had been inflated by changes to the way police record crime.

Three-quarters of firearms offences during the year, excluding air guns, took place in just five police forces: Metropolitan (42% of the total), Greater Manchester (14%), West Midlands (13%), West Yorkshire and Merseyside (both 3%).

The Association of Chief Police Officers' spokesman on crime policy, Paul Hampson, said: "The recent rise in firearms offences concerns all of us.

"Acpo is very supportive of the Government's intention to strengthen the law in relation to illegally-held firearms."

On burglary, Home Office statistics chief Professor Paul Wiles said the updated British Crime Survey (BCS), also published today, showed domestic burglary had fallen 7%, while recorded crime showed a "very tiny" increase of 2% in adjusted figures for the three months to September.

"The only sensible judgment from that is that we have a stable burglary position," he said.

Mr Denham added that the survey also showed there was a "worrying lack of confidence in the criminal justice system" with 44% of adults believing it was effective in bringing people to justice.

It was a priority of the Government to tackle that issue this year, he added.

Research from the BCS showed that less than half of adults (44%) believe the criminal justice system is effective in bringing people to justice.

Ministers claim that because the BCS is based on comprehensive victim-based research it is a more authoritative measure of crime.

Mr Denham said the survey showed that all crime was down by 7%, violent crime was down by 2%, domestic burglary was down by 7% and vehicle theft by 14%.

He said the survey trends since 1997 showed all crime down by 27%, burglary by 39%, vehicle theft by 32% and violent crime by 26%.

The Shooting Sports Trust said the rise in armed crime proved that strong measures against guns following the Dunblane massacre were "a mistake" and warned moves to remove fake guns from the streets could drive more criminals to obtain real firearms.

Chief executive of crime reduction charity Nacro, Paul Cavadino, said: "The statistics show that crime in England and Wales is continuing to fall. This must be welcomed."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2tURzGK00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook