Telegraph UK: We must bring in a better law on self-defence

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...st-bring-in-a-better-law-on-self-defence.html

Over the past decade, this government has made a fetish of human rights. Yet one basic right has been denied: the right to self-defence. At the moment, the law states that those who defend themselves – for example, against burglars who have entered their homes – may only use "reasonable force". While this might sound perfectly sensible, it has in practice proved far too ambiguous, resulting in the prosecution of people who are guilty of doing no more than protecting themselves against the threat of robbery and violence.
This newspaper has long campaigned for this law to be changed – and last week brought renewed evidence of why that campaign is so necessary, in the shape of the sentence of two and half years in prison handed down to Munir Hussain, and the even longer sentence given to his brother, Tokeer. Munir Hussain and his family were terrified by two masked burglars wielding 12-inch knives who threatened to kill them. When he managed to free himself, he, his brother and a third individual pursued the intruders, beating one so severely that he suffered brain damage.

 

[Carol]

Good find, Bill :asian:

I think they would find themselves in the same hot water here in the States.

When he managed to free himself, he, his brother and a third individual pursued the intruders, beating one so severely that he suffered brain damage.

This implies that the brothers and a third party went to hunt the bad guys down and teach them a lesson.

If that's the case, then that is revenge, not self-defense, IMO.

 

[Tez3]

There's a couple of problems with this, the Opposition at the moment will promise anyone anything with the election coming up, well we all know that one lol. this also is a Tory newspaper so will support the Opposition and try to embarrass the government. I don't know why, it does it quite well all on it's own.
The other is that while there's sympathy for the man who suffered being threatened in his own home, he broke the law by pursuing for quite a long way a man he believed had been part of the gang and as it says, with others used weapons to beat him into a senseless pulp causing permanent brain damage.
The crux of the case is that Munir Hassan wasn't defending himself, the burglars had left the house, he and his family were no longer in danger. He was in fact jailed for a revenge attack, vigilante justice if you like and as the judge said, that can't be allowed. It was more than reasonable to expect that once free he would call the police but instead he took a metal bar and a cricket bat and with others went hunting for the intruders and when finding one of them beat him severely.
The burglar wasn't let off, he has permanent brain damage and while there's little, indeed no sympathy for him, it can hardly be said he got off scot free with a massive skull fracture and his brain addled. You have to ask to, what if they'd got hold of the wrong man?

It's important to read exactly why he was taken to court and what he was being tried for rather than just see the headlines and assume it was self defence. A great many people will have sympathy for what he did but it was clearly against the law, he wasn't defending himself he was taking revenge.

 

[Ramirez]

You have to ask to, what if they'd got hold of the wrong man?

exactly!

 

[David43515]

I think you`re right, it`s a terrible example of "selfDefense", but I also think that goes part way toward making the point of the article. Namely that the law, as written, isn`t as clear as it could be and perhaps needs to be rewritten so it`s less ambiguous.

 

[Carol]

Personally, I don't think a rewrite of the self-defense laws is the lesson to be learned from this case. Take look at the perpetrator, Waled Salem.

Before robbing the Hussain family, Salem had 54 prior convictions.

This article is a bit tabloid in its presentation, but I suspect its reporting of Salem's criminal history in the center box is accurate. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...untouchable-householder-tormented-jailed.html

Which is the greater legal travesty?

That Waled Salem had 54 priors, yet was still roaming the street terrorizing innocent people?

Or that UK law doesn't quantify that "reasonable force" means once a theat is over, you can't gather your family around you, load them up with weapons, find the person you think may be the perp, and beat them until they sustain permanent injury?

 

[Tez3]

I think you`re right, it`s a terrible example of "selfDefense", but I also think that goes part way toward making the point of the article. Namely that the law, as written, isn`t as clear as it could be and perhaps needs to be rewritten so it`s less ambiguous.

The law actually is quite explicit in what and what isn't allowed. Many people however prefer to use the 'word of mouth' school of law where they think they know the law but don't. the article doesn't chose to point that out as it's a political iten not a crime story.

On the subject of Salem's record, he was a petty criminal, none of the crimes he had committed carried long sentences and were minor offences, you can't throw him in prison for tens of years for being congenitally stupid and getting caught for petty crimes. Only the last was a serious crime and he got 'punished' for that by having his already small brain battered.

One thing here is that the Asian comminuty is a very closed one and believes in handing out punishments themselves, hence we have honour killings and 'suicides' of 'unsatisfactory' wives. The victim chose to take the law into his own hands, and while as the judge said many would feel that the burglar deserves a hiding this wasn't the way to go about things. If during the robbery the burglars had been killed in self defence there would have been no case to answer. Take the law into your own hands and you will have to answer to the law.

 

[Carol]

The law actually is quite explicit in what and what isn't allowed. Many people however prefer to use the 'word of mouth' school of law where they think they know the law but don't. the article doesn't chose to point that out as it's a political iten not a crime story.

The opening lines being a rant about the government, I can see that. Same stuff happens here, just with different names.

On the subject of Salem's record, he was a petty criminal, none of the crimes he had committed carried long sentences and were minor offences, you can't throw him in prison for tens of years for being congenitally stupid and getting caught for petty crimes. Only the last was a serious crime and he got 'punished' for that by having his already small brain battered.

I suspect that your petty crimes are processed in a similar way as ours...where the legal defense is less about a fact-finding mission, and more about (often overworked) defense attorneys pushing as many cases through the legal system trying to get the best plea bargain for their clients. It is understandable, especially where this guy was not a violent person or a druggie...but as a civilian, it does seem a bit frustrating to see someone with a long record out on the streets again. Messes with our idea of a perfect world, dammit.

One thing here is that the Asian comminuty is a very closed one and believes in handing out punishments themselves, hence we have honour killings and 'suicides' of 'unsatisfactory' wives. The victim chose to take the law into his own hands, and while as the judge said many would feel tthe burglar deserves a hiding this wasn't the way to go about things. If during the robbery the burglars had been killed in self defence there would have been no case to answer. Take the law into your own hands and you will have to answer to the law.

That is a problem here too. I suspect you may see more of it due to differering demographics, but our country hasn't been immune from those types of problems. There are many people of south Asian heritage that take matters so much more personally than westerners, which can result in dangerous cycles of insults and revenge.

 

[Bruno@MT]

On the subject of Salem's record, he was a petty criminal, none of the crimes he had committed carried long sentences and were minor offences, you can't throw him in prison for tens of years for being congenitally stupid and getting caught for petty crimes. Only the last was a serious crime and he got 'punished' for that by having his already small brain battered.
.

At the risk of being a labeled a cynic, I think it is reasonable to expect that if someone build up a record of dozens of 'minor' offences he'll eventually find his way to more serious things.

Ultimately, he brought this onto himself.
We can debate this case for a long time, but in this case it is clear that the justice system failed. Not perhaps because of this specific conviction, but because a guy with 50 something offences is allowed to graduate to a serious criminal before he is even on the radar.

The justice system got 50 opportunities to solve the problem. They didn't. In the end, someone took it onto himself to fix it. The criminal will probably not do this again, which is more than the justice system ever managed.

The justice system is a social contract, in which we the civilians agree not to take matters in our own hands on the premise that the judicial system does its job. If it doesn't, then it is only a matter of time before someone else does.

 

[Tez3]

I imagine he will do exactly the same thing again. the law hasn't had 50 chancesto fix it, you can't send a man to prison for 50 odd years for minor offences and many of them were exactly that minor offences, 'going equipped to cheat' isn't high on the list of crimes that rate a long prison sentence. He served a prison sentence for each of the more serious crimes and yet he continues to commit crimes, he's stupid and you can't legislate for that. What do you do, keep him locked up for the rest of his life...at our expense? If he won't learn he won't, you might bear in mind he gets caught nearly everytime.

Did he deserve to beat beaten senseless and be left with brain damage? It's questionable, did the man who's house he broke into and threaten him have the right to attack him , only if he was defending himself, he actually had the right (yes the law says so) to kill him if he was defending himself and his family but he chose to chase them down the street and three on one beat the criminal with an iron bar and a cricket bat. I don't have sympathy for him but I do have respect for the law and I'm afraid that the householder and his companions broke the law.

It's fine to go on about the law having had all these chances to put things right but how exactly?
We don't have plea bargaining here nor do we have public defenders. We have a two tier sysrem (roughly speaking as we do have other courts) but the first tier is the magistrates court which deals with offences that carry a lesser penalty, the Crown Court deals with the major cases. Most of the accused cases were in the magistrates court.

I would dispute the fact that there is a failure here in that a criminal who spends most of his time being caught was under the radar, how do you think he was caught? The police watch him you know, they don't ignore the likes of him. I'm not sure what you would have done with him, there's his ilk everywhere, do you want them rounded up and stuck in extermination camps? do we chop his hands off, publically stone him to death if not what exactly?

 

[Sukerkin]

I do agree with what Tez says above, after all she is somewhat more likely than me to know how the law works .

I do ponder what I would do myself tho, under similar circumstances? If such felons had been in my house, threatening my family with knives, even if I chase them off I would be worried sick that they would be back to try again - and it is my firm belief that they would do just that.

How can the law protect us under such circumstances?

 

[Jdokan]

Sounds like the real issue is not to get caught dishing out revenge....You just need to be better at being a predator than they are.....

 

[Tez3]

Sounds like the real issue is not to get caught dishing out revenge....You just need to be better at being a predator than they are.....

You may say that but I can't possibly comment! .....but look for places where there are no witnesses and no CCTV.

There was every chance that while chasing one intruder the others could have gone back to the house, the best thing would have been to stay in the house, with weapons if need be, phone the police and wait for them. don't disturb evidence ( think everyone knows that by know). Get better security too. Get your crime prevention officer in to go through the house with you to get the best security you can.

 

[Grenadier]

An update on the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/beds/bucks/herts/8469850.stm

Hussain's sentence has been changed from 30 months, to 2 years suspended, meaning that he's essentially free.

The decision to free Hussain comes one day after judges rejected his appeal against his conviction.

Lord Judge said the case was one of "true exceptionality".

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said people who put themselves in danger to tackle criminals should be celebrated as "heroes".
Courageous members of the public "make our society worthwhile", he said as part of a widening political debate about the rights of people to use force to defend themselves.

On another note, the allegedly brain-damaged criminal is awaiting trial for crimes that he committed AFTER this incident...

 

[Tez3]

A perfect example of the British art of compromise and also a good example of how a law works well.
This man was found guilty, rightly, of a crime he committed, he attacked and injured a man not in self defence but in anger. He was given the correct sentence for this crime, however we have an appeal system here so he was given that sentence suspended instead. A satisfactory conclusion.
It's understandable that he wanted to make the criminal pay but as the judge says we can't have vigilante actions and it would have been awful if he had hurt an innocent person instead.
He's not exactly free, hes got a suspended sentence which means a criminal record. If he commits a crime in the next two years he will go back to prison.
You may sympathise with his feeling for wanting revenge but he was wrong. if he'd beaten the guy up or even killed him during the robbery there would be no conversation about this, he wouldn't have been charged.

Being brain damaged doesn't stop you committing crimes and he's still stupid enough to be caught...again.