Householders and burglars

I'm not a violent person. In fact, I don't think I have ever struck anyone in anger in my life. I've had a few bundles when I worked (briefly) as a bouncer, and I once (gently) slapped a woman who had become hysterical. But actually hitting someone with the intent to hurt them - never.

This householder/burglar thing disturbs me, though. If I ever woke up in the night to find someone in the house, or even in the bedroom, I really don't know what I'd do. I used to own a shotgun, and a lot of my neighbours keep theirs under the bed for just this occasion, but I am no Tony Martin and I always kept it well locked away. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the malice to kill someone just for nicking my TV, and the consequences if the gun was taken from me don't bear thinking about.

Equally, I wouldn't say to myself "well, it's only property, and it's not as if it matters in the great scheme of things, so I'll pull the duvet over my head and report it in the morning". I would be frightened and furious - a very dangerous combination in anyone.

I once had advice on this from a policeman, off the record. His advice was to arm yourself, but with something non-lethal. A torch, a big, heavy one, was the best. After all, if you batter an intruder to jam with a baseball bat it starts to look a bit premeditated, especially if, like me, you have no kids on the premises and the last time you played rounders was in primary school. But what jury would ever criticise a householder for carrying a torch while investigating noises in the dark? The advice was to carry it over your shoulder, pointing forward, with a finger on the on/off button. When you find the intruder, switch it on. And while he is temporarily blinded by the light, bring the torch down over your head onto his cranium. You're unlikely to do him permanent harm, but he won't be getting up for a while.

So now I have a heavy Maglite about 15" long under the bed in easy reach, and I know what to do with it. And I would use it, without a doubt. Because I would be afraid, but also very, very angry.



The police (official version) would say that you should not confront the intruder, but call them and let them deal with it. Ha. Bloody. Ha.

• For one thing, the phone lines are easily cut, and there is no mobile signal in the bedroom end of the house
• For another, the nearest neighbour is a good half-mile away
• For yet another, I have lived here 20 years, and have seen the police here four times - three to check on my gun storage arrangements and once to ask if we had seen anything following a break-in to someone's garage. I doubt if the police even know where we are, let alone get here in time to deal with a critical situation
• And for another, if they turned out, and if they found the house, and if they caught the intruder, what would happen? My guess would be nothing.

Luckily, I live in a low-crime area, and the likelihood of being burgled is low. But the thought is always there - what if?

And what if I heard noises in the night and picked up my torch to investigate, and found one of these?

Cold-calling police are to pose as burglars to drive home their safety message. Householders whose homes are an easy target could be woken in the middle of the night by officers trying windows and doors. The initiative, code-named Operation Golden, is being launched in a bid to cut break-ins.

It is being trialled by Cheshire Police, who say residents who fall foul of their checks will be roused with a lecture from officers on what they could have lost.

Assaulting A Police Officer carries a heavy penalty - rightly - and I'm sure I would going daaaahn for a long time.

What is going on? First they were breaking into your car, then giving you your stuff back with a warning. Now they are going to burgle your house and then get you up for a ticking-off. I think I could easily lose my patience at that point.

It's a serious issue, though. In an ideal world (and one I remember being something like it within living memory), we would have a police force that responded to people in distress, and arrested offenders, and a judicial system that put them behind bars to stop them doing it again. Then we could all sleep easy in our beds and there would be no need for torches, or guns, or cricket bats, or vigilante-style activity. But now, I have no confidence that the police would even leave the station for a minor thing like a burglary (too busy prosecuting motorists for eating an apple), and if they did catch anyone the worst they would receive would be a slap on the wrist.

As far as I am concerned, human rights are a two-way street. If you break the law, you remove yourself from the protection of the law. You don't want me to come at you with a heavy implement? Then don't break into my house. Simple.

It reminds me of an old, but relevant, joke. Stop me if you've heard it.

A man wakes in the middle of the night after hearing a noise. He looks out of the window to see two youths in his shed. He phones the police to report the intruders.

"Sorry, Sir, there's no-one available at the moment. You aren't in any danger, so let them get on with it, go back to bed and report it in the morning."

He isn't happy with this, so he goes outside, apprehends them and ties them up with garden twine. He waits a few minutes and then phones the police again.

"It's OK, no need to rush. I've shot them."

Within minutes, the air is full of police helicopters, there are six pursuit vehicles on his drive, police snipers on his roof, and officers in riot gear and bulletproof vests are swarming over his garden.

He calls the senior officer over and points out the youths, tied up and upset, but alive.

"Sir, I thought you said you had shot them."

"And I thought you said you had no-one available!"

Self-defence

This a little behind the curve, but ... I have been following the case of Munir Hussain with interest. This, you may recall, was the man who was held hostage, along with his wife and family, in his own home by burglars. He managed to escape, and with his brother chased the fleeing burglars. When they caught up with them, they gave one a good hiding with a cricket bat, giving the burglar permanent brain injury as a result. Mr Hussain was given a 30-month prison sentence, and there was an outcry similar to that around the Tony Martin case of 1999. The brother, who we may assume carried out the majority of the attack, was sentenced to 39 months.

This week, the case went to appeal, and Mr Justice Judge (isn't that good? almost as good as Cocklecarrot) reduced his sentence to 12 months, suspended for two years: effectively, freed on appeal. Great, but disturbing.

The great bit first. Mr Hussain was imprisoned in his own home by a career criminal. His wife and children had been tied up, and he must have had grave concerns about what would happen to them if the burglars decided to see what they could get away with. Fortunately, he escaped, contacted his brother, and chased the burglars, who by this time had given up and run away. They caught one of them and gave him a sound pasting. Sounds good - the law-abiding man gets his revenge, and there is one fewer criminal to terrorise some other innocent family.

The disturbing bit is that the attack was not committed on Mr Hussain's property. The burglars were chased up the street and attacked far from Mr Hussain's home. That suggests a punishment beating rather than self-defence while in fear of one's life. Secondly, a number or weapons, including a golf club and a cricket bat, were used in the attack, where there is no suggestion that the burglars were armed in any way. Thirdly, the burglar sustained serious head injuries, sufficient to prevent him appearing at the trial, although not enough to render him incapable of further criminal acts, it would appear. The law allows the householder to use reasonable force to defend his home and family from intruders, but in this case there is a big question mark over how far Mr Hussain's actions stand the test of reasonableness or proportionality.

This is not a clear-cut case, no matter how the Daily Mail spins it.

For myself, I am a believer in the rule of law. If a householder has to resort to violence to defend himself or apprehend a criminal intent on stealing his property, then as long as the force used is reasonable, I have no problem with it. I have a feeling that Mr Hussain went beyond that simple definition when he chased the burglar down the street and attacked him. But there are other ways of looking at it. The burglar set out with the intention of breaking the law. Mr Hussain had been to the mosque, and no thought of criminality was in his mind, until he found the intruder in his house. The mens rea suggests that the burglar was intent on criminality, whereas Mr Hussain was innocent of any such intention until provoked.

I would tend to side with Mr Hussain for this reason: the law is there for everyone, and its function is to protect everyone. If I deliberately break the law, it is hardly consistent for me to then claim that the people I was offending against should adhere to the laws of the land in their acts of defence. Once you enter someone else's property with criminal intent, as far as I am concerned you have signed away your rights as a citizen. If you get a good hiding for your trouble, well - you shouldn't have been in someone else's house, should you? I would go further: if you rig up trip wires linked to a shotgun, or you electrify certain metal objects to harm intruders, well why shouldn't you? Unless someone is deliberately breaking the law, these measures cannot harm them. And if you break the law, frankly, it's your lookout.

I think Mr Judge Justice, or whatever he is called, has got it about right. Mr Hussain did go too far, but he was substantially justified in what he did. A conviction, but with no penalty, is about right.