A citizen’s rights apply when they live within the law. As soon as someone makes the conscience decision to trespass on another person's property (which in turn is likely to cause harm and distress to other citizens), they fore-go their rights. A citizen is well within their rights to defend their family and property by any means possible free from the fear of prosecution. They might break the law because circumstance has forced them to. By contrast, trespassers have a choice.

It is possible for trespassing to be a genuine mistake or an act of desperation. If this happens and someone attacks the trespasser mistakenly thinking that they are going to attack them, they should be penalised.

The case of Munir Hussain brought public attention to the fact that the law of self defence as it stands offers more protection to the wrong doers than it does to the innocent people protecting their land. This is not a happy state of affairs. We should be able to protect our property from intruders. Upon entering a house, a burglar has invaded someone’s privacy. A home is not just the building; it’s the people inside as well. A man’s house is supposed to be a place of support and security. When that is breached, people feel very threatened. They need to get intruders out without worrying that they themselves will be prosecuted. The law should not protect burglars; it should not punish the victim of the crime.

We are able to protect our homes, but just not in a disproportionate manner. If an intruder has a gun, we can shoot the criminal; we do not have to wait for the burglar to shoot us. However, if they do not have a gun, if we then shoot them for them merely being in our homes, then this is disproportionate. Parliament has assigned 14years maximum sentence for burglary. To allow people to act as violently as they like so long as it is not ‘grossly disproportionate’ would be allowing people to take the law into their own hands. If Parliament has not given burglary a life sentence then neither should the public. This is nothing more than capital punishment executed by the public.

Munir Hussain's actions can hardly be used to justify a change in the law regarding the force that homeowners may use against intruders. In this case, it should be considered that the antagonist did not even claim to have acted in self-defence, that the attack took place some distance from his house and family, and that a witness who saw the assault – of a man who was running away – likened it to the action of a "pack of animals".^[1].

There is no justification for the knife-wielding burglary inflicted on Hussain's family by Walid Salem. However, by beating Salem so hard that it smashed the weapon - a cricket bat - in three places causing him permanent brain damage, we can surely confirm, as Hussain did in his trial, that he did not use reasonable force^[2].

The main issue to be considered here is how a man with more than 50 previous convictions was free to attempt his crime against Munir Hussain and his family. Surely it is this area in which the government needs to consider changing the law. However, two wrongs do not make a right and there is no place in our society for the vicious revenge attack carried out in this case.

1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/20/catherine-bennett-munir-hussain-law
2. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/14/jail-brothers-burglar-cricket-bat

It would not create state sponsored vigilantism. People are already defending themselves using force. The law about reasonable force is ridiculous because if you're being burgled, you fear for your safety. You will do anything in your power to maim the perpetrator because they are not meant to be there!

The first instinct is to try and protect one’s self, and then try and get help. Not phoning for help, whilst still in a vulnerable situation. It would not undermine the justice system as we trust that if we put our case forward they will understand why we had to use force. We trust that the burglar will be convicted, not that we will be convicted for defending ourselves.

If homeowners could defend their property as vigorously as they liked, it would undermine the role of the state in dealing with crime. If a homeowner where to be in a position where their property or family where under threat, a degree of force reasonable for the situation could be used to try to neutralise that threat. However, if homeowners were free from prosecution, the possibility of intruders being killed or seriously maimed without the perpetrators being convicted becomes real. This would have a detrimental effect on society; as members of civilized society, we put our faith in the justice system to punish those to break our laws dispassionately and without prejudice. We could not say that a homeowner would be as objective when dealing with a trespasser.

The law on self defence is completely inadequate as it stands. Currently, it only allows householders to use "reasonable" force against burglars without the fear of prosecution.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, has rightly made the point that "At the moment the law allows a defendant to use 'reasonable force' to protect him or herself, their family or their property... the defence that the law offers a householder should be much clearer, and prosecutions and convictions should only happen in cases where courts judge the actions involved to be 'grossly disproportionate'." People have a moral right to defend their family and property and the law should reflect that.^[1]

The description of anything other than "grossly disproportionate" force as the new level of permitted force that would be introduced by the Conservatives over Jack Staw's "reasonable force" is clear and positive. It implies that homeowners would be able to do what was required to protect themselves in confidence, but not injuring intruders more than they need to. The sooner that such changes are introduced, the better.

1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6844682/Tories-back-new-rights-to-help-home-owners-protect-themselves-from-burglars.html

When looking at the law of self defence, it already gives people who use this defence a lot of leeway. All that is required is that you believed yourself or others to be in danger and you acted proportionately with the violence that you believed was potential. You need not wait to be struck, you can have a pre-emptive strike to prevent the threat occurring in the first place. There are several elements of leeway here.

First of all, you need not suffer any physical harm, or see anyone else suffer physical harm to invoke this defence. You can attack someone before they have attacked anyone; this is classed as a pre-emptive strike.

The second crutch offered in this defence is that the fear that you are defending yourself from need not be real. As long as you can prove beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that you believed a threat to be present, then you can invoke the defence, even if you were mistaken. So if you thought someone was going to hit you, you could hit them first, even if they were not in fact going to hit you. In court, you are judged not on what the scenario were, but on what you believed them to be.

The third is that the defence must be proportionate to the threat perceived. So if you believed they had a knife in their pocket when it was merely a mobile phone, then you are acting proportionately to defend yourself with a knife.

Paul Mendelle, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association argues that the current law works well, stating that "trial by jury helps the criminal justice system reflect the values and standards of the general public"^[1]. Why would we seek to change the law to different concepts that might not be so easily understood? Whenever the word ‘gross’ is used in the law, people get confused. People have different conceptions and ideas about what gross means. This will cloud the law. People will not know what they can and cannot do. How can you draw the line neatly between acting disproportionately, which would be allowed under the Tories plans for reformation, and acting grossly disproportionate? The law on self defence although not enshrined in statute is widely understood and accepted. If the Tories change the law on this matter then prepare to see a hazier concept of self defence.

1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/21/juries-work-best-research

Yes, politicians form part of Parliament, and Parliament sets the laws, but we should not allow them to use the law as a point scoring technique with the public. The law works fine as it is. Yes there are a few unsatisfactory results, but this was decided by peers; members of the jury. They decide the cases based on the facts. The media picked up on these cases and has turned the public against the law of self defence but they are only seeing a snippet of what the law actually does in this area. We should not change the law because there has been one high profile case that the public were disgusted by. If the law gives a satisfactory result in the vast majority of cases, then why change it for the odd case? The only reason the Tories want to change the law is to get the public on their side. But they should not meddle with a law that works just to win votes. This is not justice.