How far can householders go to defend themselves? The reignited debate on “have-a-go heroes” is already prompting fresh calls from politicians for reforms to the law.
Yesterday the Conservatives promised “greater protection to householders who defend their homes against intruders” although there are no specifics on what that would be.
At present a person is permitted to use “reasonable force”, but the Tories are suggesting a wider definition, allowing all actions that are not “grossly disproportionate”.
But any change in the law must address the tensions between the right to self-defence and unlawful vigilantism. In the wake of controversy over the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who shot dead a teenager who was burgling his home, ministers tried to redress the balance.
The result was the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 that made clear that those who used reasonable force to protect themselves, and no more force than necessary, should not be taken to court.
Advertisement
But they must also be acting instinctively; have feared for their safety or that of others, or tried to make a lawful arrest or prevent someone’s escape who was lawfully detained. Crucially, they cannot attack a fleeing criminal or lie in wait to ambush them.
Yesterday a source close to Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, said that Labour had changed the law to provide protection for householders who do not use disproportionate force.
By contrast, the Conservatives, he added, seemed to want to allow householders to use disproportionate force.
So the issue seems destined for the election battleground, as well as for the courts.