Government lawyers say burglars 'need protection'

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-05-18 09:37pm

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/s ... t=3&dir=60

Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.

The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.

In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.

They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."

"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."

A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".

Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.

But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.

Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.

A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.

Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.

In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."

Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".

The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.

******************

What a load of bollocks this is. So burgulars have to be protected from
the people they're trying to rob?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-18 09:40pm

What kind of tort law does England have that even allows crooks to collect with any success? Does assumption-of-risk just not apply?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-05-18 09:41pm

The only protection the like of a burglar deserves is six feet of dirt for his casket, and until the British people wake up and realize that - and make their leaders realize it - they're continue a spiral into tyranny.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-18 09:45pm

WTF is wrong with these fucking lawyers,criminals gave away their right the second they`ve commited their first crime,what next if one get shot robbing a bank he`ll sue the bank for millions.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-05-18 09:49pm

My favorite quote: "... when he is either burgled ...".

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-05-18 09:58pm

Wasnt this the guy that shot an unarmed man six time in the back with a shotgun?

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-05-18 10:03pm

Hey! I know! Lets send them to Australia!

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-18 10:22pm

weemadando wrote:Hey! I know! Lets send them to Australia!

Better idea lets feed the hungry sharks.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-05-18 10:27pm

If you break into my house, I can and will blow your face off.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-18 10:27pm

Montcalm wrote:
weemadando wrote:Hey! I know! Lets send them to Australia!
Better idea lets feed the hungry sharks.

There are many sharks and other nasty things in Australian waters.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-18 11:06pm

well there is actually some point about protecting burglers. Dont get me wrong, i find it insane that if a robber tripps on my bad driveway and breaks a leg that he can sue me over it, but what i mean are those kinds of people who when they find out they are being robbed shoot first and ask questions later. In all other cases your reprisal must be fitting of your risk, at least in the states killing another human being is only legal when in direct defence of the life of yourself or someone else, so you must be able to demonstrate that you had good cause to believe that not only was the robber/burgeler armed with a deadly weapon, but that you had no other way of getting out of the situation other than through shooting them.

Attacking someone who is robbing your house when they are not posing a threat to your life or you have a way to escape safely, is unnecessary force and VIGILANTEISM. the punishment should fit the crime, and i think everyone agrees that capital punishment is not a good punishment for simple petty theft.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-05-18 11:07pm

Bullfucking shit a criminal has rights when commiting a felony.

Sheer and utter stupidity if they follow through on this line of thinking.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-18 11:14pm

True story a robber broke is leg while trying to rob a hardware store at night,the SOBs sued the owner in court and the fucking judge ruled in is favor,verdict the owner should not have left a ladder where someone could tripped on it.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-05-18 11:16pm

Yes....imporant note here....

Above case is in the UK....

Stupid frivilous lawsuits are in america.....

We here dont think people should die you're talking about people filing lawsuits.....here we suggest they go to jail and they sure as hell arent getting to sue...but you dont get to kill them either......

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-18 11:30pm

EmperorMing wrote:Bullfucking shit a criminal has rights when commiting a felony.

Sheer and utter stupidity if they follow through on this line of thinking.

ohh so now "unalienable rights" is only when you feel like it? NO. The punishment must fit the crime, period, killing someone is a crime always, UNLESS it is in direct defence of your LIFE. If you have no legit reason to expect to be killed with no other recourse, killing is illegal and WRONG. the sanctity of human life is a million times more important than someone's stupid material possessions.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-05-18 11:38pm

NapoleonGH wrote:Attacking someone who is robbing your house when they are not posing a threat to your life or you have a way to escape safely, is unnecessary force and VIGILANTEISM. the punishment should fit the crime, and i think everyone agrees that capital punishment is not a good punishment for simple petty theft.

I view things differently, the home is sacred and shall not be violated. If someone breakes into my storage shed, meh, big deal, what are they gonna do, steal a lawnmower? Break into my garage and I'll be quite pissed, I've got cars in there that could be stolen, still, no real need to go running out with a gun in hand.

Breaking into my home is a completely different story, it is NOT petty theft, petty theft is stealing candies from the variety store. I live in my home, and if someone's breaking in they're up to no good. I do not have the time to decide whether or not the robber is a threat to my life, if I guess wrong I could very likely end up dead. Unlike the guys in movies, I can't dodge bullets and dive through windows. You have seconds at best to decide on your course of action when some perp breaks into your house. I am not psychic, I don't know if the robbers will hurt me or my family, nor do I care. All I know is that some asshole with bad intentions has broken into my house and is up to no good, and thus I will redecorate the entranceway of my house with his blood.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-18 11:46pm

and yet if the guy has no gun, you killed a man in cold blood

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-18 11:50pm

NapoleonGH wrote:and yet if the guy has no gun, you killed a man in cold blood

Not if you don't have time to make a decision which could jeopardize your life if made incorrectly.

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-05-18 11:51pm

right, and if you could either, shoot the guy without knowing if armed, or run out the back door, knowing that they arent anywhere near the back door. If you choose to shoot, you are a murderer. You had an option that was easily available with a decent chance of success leaving no one needing a hurse, and choose to kill instead.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-05-18 11:53pm

NapoleonGH wrote:and yet if the guy has no gun, you killed a man in cold blood

On wich side are you,i guess you think its ok for 4 teenage bastards who broke-in the house of an old woman with the intention of robbing her,but it was not enough they`ve decided to kill her,but hey she had it coming she had no right in her own home.

By the way i`m sarcastic,and this event is true.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-05-19 12:52am

NapoleonGH wrote:right, and if you could either, shoot the guy without knowing if armed, or run out the back door, knowing that they arent anywhere near the back door. If you choose to shoot, you are a murderer. You had an option that was easily available with a decent chance of success leaving no one needing a hurse, and choose to kill instead.

You are a no-go at my station. Break into my house, and you will be met with the probability of deadly force being used. There is no way of knowing what any intruder has in mind. You obviously have no concern for your well being or for your familie's well being.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-05-19 01:09am

EmperorMing wrote: You are a no-go at my station. Break into my house, and you will be met with the probability of deadly force being used. There is no way of knowing what any intruder has in mind. You obviously have no concern for your well being or for your familie's well being.

Agreed. There already intent on furthering themselves at the expense of another, you can't know if there willing to go even further.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-05-19 01:16am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
EmperorMing wrote: You are a no-go at my station. Break into my house, and you will be met with the probability of deadly force being used. There is no way of knowing what any intruder has in mind. You obviously have no concern for your well being or for your familie's well being.
Agreed. There already intent on furthering themselves at the expense of another, you can't know if there willing to go even further.

And I will *not* allow them the option of going further.

On another note, daytime break-in is one thing due to visibility of the intruder. Nightime intrusion is matter...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-19 01:25am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Agreed. There already intent on furthering themselves at the expense of another, you can't know if there willing to go even further.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that if they commit theft, they must be assumed capable of murder and then executed?

If someone comes toward you in your own home and you shoot him, it is arguably self-defense. But not every home situation is automatically self-defense. If you make a noise and he turns to run, shooting him in the back (for example) is murder. It depends on the scenario.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-05-19 01:27am

NapoleonGH wrote:right, and if you could either, shoot the guy without knowing if armed, or run out the back door, knowing that they arent anywhere near the back door. If you choose to shoot, you are a murderer. You had an option that was easily available with a decent chance of success leaving no one needing a hurse, and choose to kill instead.

Doesn't matter. Someone is trying to cause injury to your life, the life of someone else, or to your property, it should ideally be equal. The point is that you must act while the attempt is occuring - If Tony Martin did in fact shoot that guy when he was running away, I can understand the sentence - But if you catch someone in the process of committing harm, even merely harm to property, such as theft, then it should be your right to take them out with whatever you've got available.

That should be the distinguishing point in the law: Was the act going on, or had it already ceased? If it had already ceased, then it's vigilantism. If it's still occuring, then to resist - even with deadly force - is perfectly appropriate in all cases.