/>Grossly disproportionate
Today politics seemed all rather familiar. Chris Grayling, doing his best William Hague impression (c.1999), announced that a Conservative government would ensure that the law protected those who acted in self-defence when burgled, rather than the “criminals” themselves.
Grayling promised that rules defining appropriate self-defence in instances where one’s home is under attack would be changed. A Conservative government would ensure only “grossly disproportionate” acts are illegal, compared to “unreasonable” acts at present (it is unclear whether this is similar to scrapping NHS targets for “measurable outcomes”, or something more substantial).
The policy announcement was prompted by the case of Munir Hussain, whose acts of self-defence against robbers who tied his family up in their Buckinghamshire home were adjudged to have gone too far.
The danger with political posturing of Grayling’s sort is that it gives too much prominence to the court of public opinion, and relies too much on electoral calculus than on the cold, hard facts of the case. In the Hussain example, his act of self-defence involved chasing the robbers out of his home, down his street and leaving one of the robbers with permanent brain damage as a consequence of a beating with cricket bats.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Hussain, in the heat of the moment, took the law into his own hands. The court decided that, through his actions, Hussain too became a criminal. Arguing, as some have, that it is ridiculous to expect individuals to weigh up whether their acts of self-defence would be considered reasonable in a court of law misses the point of the criminal justice system.
The Judge in the Hussain case recognised that many in Hussain’s position would want to protect their families. But the Judge rightly described his subsequent actions as a “dreadful, violent attack”. Judge Reddihough said:
If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.
On this issue, the Conservatives must surely be wrong – our laws should only protect victims of crime to the extent they do not use that as an excuse to commit gross acts of violence themselves.
Judge and jury in this example had enough latitude to decide whether Hussain’s actions were reasonable. They thought not. The Judge had some discretion to decide what an appropriate sentence would be. He decided upon a 30-month jail term.
That some politicians disagree – for selfish reasons – with the way a law is interpreted and acted upon should not, of itself, be cause to rewrite it.
(The Times leader and Catherine Bennett in the Observer are worth reading on this.)
