Will the law protect you when taking on a raider?
LAWS governing the use of force against intruders have been clarified after a series of high-profile cases.
Residents can now use “disproportionate force” as long as they genuinely believe such drastic measures are necessary.
But each case will still have to be judged on its own merits and the use of a weapon makes the case more complicated.
The issue took off in 1999, when Norfolk farmer Tony Martin shot dead 16-year-old raider Fred Barras with a shotgun.
Martin’s claim of self-defence backed up by “reasonable force” under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was rejected by a jury and the Court of Appeal. The 54-year-old did manage to get his murder conviction reduced to manslaughter and – despite widespread support from the public – served three years in prison.
In 2008 Buckinghamshire businessman Munir Hussain was jailed for 30 months for chasing and attacking a raider with a cricket bat for tying up his family.
Six years ago Chris Grayling, who was then Justice Secretary, created a new “householder defence”.
The law was tested when the family of burglar Denby Collins went to the High Court, claiming that the new provisions breached the Human Rights Act.
Collins was left in a coma after a householder – identified only as “B” – put him in a headlock after catching him on their property in Gillingham, Kent.
Sir Brian Leveson and Mr Justice Cranston rejected their application in a landmark judgment in 2016.