Over the years, the law has seen and prosecuted attacks against Burglars due to the concept of use of force. Should this idea be removed from law? After all, these householders did not invite their burglar!

A Horrific Ordeal
In 2009, Munir Hussain was given a 30 month sentence for attacking a burglar after pursuing him out of his house and allegedly using disproportionate force. In January at the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice reduced this sentence to one year suspended for two years. His Lordship stated that this was an ‘act of mercy’ against Munir Hussain, who was of good character and had suffered a ‘terrifying ordeal and emotional anguish’.

The facts of the case were clear and not disputed by the defendant at his trial. The burglar, Walid Salem, together with two accomplices, forced their way into Mr Hussain’s home threatening physical harm and taunts of a sexual assault. Mr Hussain, who managed to overhaul the attacker, chased him down the street and inflicted such serious injury on Mr Salem that he suffered a fractured skull. At the trial, the defendant was deemed to have used disproportionate force, despite his previous good character and the threat caused by the burglar.

Deadly Circumstances
This case follows a number of trials of retaliation by the householder against the burglar using varying degrees of force, some of which have been deemed to be disproportionate whilst others have been seen as proportionate. Probably the most famous case of recent times was R v Martin (2001), where a Norfolk farmer shot and killed a burglar, who, at the time of the shooting, was running away from the front door. Martin was charged with murder, but on appeal, his sentence was reduced to three years for manslaughter. However, in R v Batchelor (Steven Robert) (2009), after shooting a burglar dead, the defendant was acquitted without charge as he was deemed to have acted in self-defence because the burglar was said to have ‘come to get him’.

Although judgements are made according to guidelines setting out appropriate force for cases such as these, these guidelines could be made clearer for the general public. Further, are the tests for appropriate force reasonable or are they biased against householders who simply wish to protect themselves, their family and their home? In our society, we certainly have to speak out against vigilantism, but the question of retaliation is much more complex, as can be seen with the Hussain case. Is there a clear distinction between the actions of a hitherto peaceful man who chased and hit his attacker when his ‘blood was up’ and a position whereby he decided to seek premeditated revenge on his attacker at some later period? Clearly, in the Hussain case, the former action was the case and although this was recognised by the Court of Appeal, should the original judgement have been more lenient to reflect the emotional anguish of Mr Hussain during his ordeal?

Purely Political?
The current political debate on the election hustings has brought the whole question of the use of force in such cases. In a response to the Conservative Party’s position, Paul Mandelle QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, stated that disproportionate force would encourage vigilantism and that ‘the law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate’. But should the test of reasonableness and proportionality be a balance between individuals having the confidence to protect themselves in any circumstance and the protection of ‘an unwelcome guest’ against disproportionate force?

Madeleine Chambers is in the second year of a Law LLB with French