MPs tackle burglar controversy
Matthew Tempest and agencies
Friday February 4, 2005
Parliament today got its first chance to debate amending the law to allow householders to tackle intruders with anything up to "grossly disproportionate force" - despite the government already having ruled out a change in the law.
Conservative backbencher Patrick Mercer's private members bill triggered - and capitalised on - a debate over the past few months on whether to allow the public greater freedom to attack burglars in defence of their own homes.
Today Mr Mercer claimed that despite a new leaflet from the Home Office explaining the definitions of the existing "reasonable force" rule, there was still "chaos and confusion".
And he lamented the fact that the prime minister appeared to have done a U-turn from initially supporting his bill. At least 100 MPs will have to back Mr Mercer's measure - which has some measure of cross-party support - to see it continue any further.
Introducing his criminal law (householder protection) bill, Mr Mercer called for the criminal law to be brought into line with civil law and the test replaced with "grossly disproportionate" force.
But the home secretary, Charles Clarke, has already announced, after a recent review, that the definition will not be changed.
Mr Mercer asked: "If this is a good law and it's working, why do we need an A4 leaflet to clarify it?"
He said: "There is utter chaos, confusion and an inability to understand this law. A bad law must be changed." Introducing the test of "grossly disproportionate" force would make householders more confident about their rights and burglars less confident about entering homes. "There will be less burglaries and less opportunities for bloody confrontations."
Tory backbenchers packed the Commons chamber in support of the measure.
Mr Mercer claimed even Brendan Fearon - who was wounded in the raid on Norfolk farmer Tony Martin in 1999, when his accomplice, Fred Barras, was shot dead - backed the bill.
"He believed that this bill would deter the sort of activity in which he had been involved in the past. "So, I have professional police officers supporting me, I have convicted criminals supporting me, at one stage I thought I had the prime minister supporting me."
One Labour backbencher, Frank Field, spoke in favour of the Tory motion, although others, and the Liberal Democrats, were opposed.
The debate on how much violence someone can use against an intruder was inflamed by recently retired Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens' comments that people should be allowed to use whatever force was necessary.
This week Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, attempted to clarify the matter by saying householders can kill burglars and not face prosecution if they use only "reasonable force".
The advice came in a leaflet issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service.
