By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent
Independent.co.uk
05 May 2003
Government lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.
The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.
In legal papers seen by The Independent, Home Office lawyers dispute Mr Martin's contention that he poses no risk to the public because he only represents a threat to burglars and other criminals who trespass on his property.
They say: "The suggestion ... that the Parole Board was not required to assess the risk posed by Mr Martin to future burglars or intruders (on the grounds that they do not form part of the public at large) is remarkable."
"It cannot possibly be suggested that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences, and whilst society naturally condemns, and punishes such persons judicially, it can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury."
A recent report by the Law Commission, which advises ministers on proposed changes to the law, argued that judges had been too willing to reject criminals' claims for damages. The commission insisted that "even a criminal who has committed a serious offence" must be allowed to exercise their civil rights. In recent years, the courts have accepted a number of arguments to defeat actions brought by criminals on the basis of the principle that "crime should not pay".
Legal experts say the case for treating criminals as ordinary litigants will have been boosted by the arguments raised by the Home Office lawyers in Martin's case.
But Oliver Letwin, the shadow Home Secretary, said the rights of the victim needed to be addressed. "There certainly seems to be an imbalance [between the householder and burglar] made clear by the fact that burglars can sue for damage done to them in the course of committing a crime. We've put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which would rebalance the law in the appropriate way."
Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, said that, by committing crime, burglars gave up "any rights". He added: "The public in this country are sick and tired of all these organisations pandering to the offender. Burglary is a despicable offence." He said: "sensible and reasonable" members of the public knew that, when criminal committed crime, they were putting themselves at risk.
Martin, 59, wants the court to order the Parole Board to reconsider its decision that he is not a suitable prisoner for early release. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering 16-year-old Fred Barras at his Norfolk farmhouse, Bleak House, in August 1999 but his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter by the Court of Appeal when he was given a five-year prison sentence.
A second burglar shot by Martin, Brendan Fearon, was granted legal aid to sue him for damages. Fearon's claim was thrown out by Nottingham County Court last month.
Martin's barristers, Bitu Bhalla and Tony Baldry, of One Essex Court chambers in London, will tell the judge tomorrow that their client's application "concerns the liberty of the citizen which is a matter of paramount concern in English law". They will tell Mr Justice Kay that the Parole Board failed to acknowledge the true extent of Martin's remorse or properly consider the risk he posed to the public.
In Martin's application for judicial review, his lawyers argue: "The risk that has to be assessed in Mr Martin's case is any risk of the use of excessive force when he is either burgled or attacked in his home."
Martin's solicitor, James Saunders, says that this risk is significantly diminished since he no longer owns a gun and has agreed to fit an air-raid siren to his home that "could be heard all over the Fens".
The court will decide tomorrow whether to grant Martin a full review hearing. He is due for release at the end of July.
5 May 2003 09:39
posted on May 5, 2003 03:28:11 PM new
"Now I'm the kinda man that'd not harm a mouse
But if I catch somebody breakin in my house
I've got twelve gauge shotgun waiting on the other side" -Charlie Daniels
posted on May 5, 2003 03:50:52 PM new
A few points which should be made:
1) This is a British case and British law is completely different - for example, there is no right to bear arms in the UK.
2) The guy in question shot at and hit two people. The boy he killed was 16 years old, and Tony Martin refuses to express remorse for killing him. Martin used a gun that was illegal and provably lied about the circumstances of the killing, factors that led a jury to convict him of murder. That charge was dropped down to manslaughter and his life sentence reduced to five years. In the current case, he's trying to get a break off of that.
posted on May 5, 2003 05:18:36 PM new
He did use a shotgun and now they have taken it away since he used it. Now what they are argueing about is they want him to grovel and say he was wrong.
posted on May 5, 2003 05:53:24 PM newGovernment lawyers trying to keep the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin behind bars will tell a High Court judge tomorrow that burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders.
The case could help hundreds of criminals bring claims for damages for injury suffered while committing offences.
Isn't this a strange reversal of blame? Isn't Tony Martin, the homeowner, the victim?
This special consideration for burglars while they are committing a crime is certainly unusual in the United States. When you wake up in the middle of the night and find a stranger in your house, how do you know that he has "burglars rights???" I'm not voting to kill anyone but this overwhelming concern for the inappropriate treatment of a burglar is a little ridiculous.
posted on May 5, 2003 06:08:12 PM new
I agree with gravid's statement: Perhaps they need some first hand experience with home invasion to mold their attitude. I've never understood those who do not appear to be able to put themselves in anothers shoes. Do they not *ever* think how they would feel in the same situation? Doesn't look like it to me.
Society in general has been leaning more and more towards the 'rights' of the criminals. Totally screwed up in my opinion. Remember the victims. Quit protecting the criminals. They should know they are risking their lives when they enter anyone's home without their consent.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 5, 2003 07:44:30 PM new
On the other hand I found out that you don't want to shoot a short barreled shotgun inside unless you were planning on remodeling....What a mess....
posted on May 5, 2003 07:47:48 PM new
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on May 6, 2003 08:36:00 AM new
It strikes me as strange that there are so many people on this board who are soft on crime.
1)The guy shot and killed a 16-year-old boy and lied to police about it.
2)A jury that heard all the evidence in the case decided he was guilty of murder. This verdict came after Martin was given the opportunity to make a case to the jury that he was acting in self-defense.
3) He had an illegal gun.
4) He has already had a life sentence knocked down to five years. (This seems like a pretty big break to me.)
Now, Martin wants to be released from prison even earlier. He is demanding this release even though he hasn't admitted what he did was wrong, and that he's sorry for having killed the boy. He is not being asked to "grovel." He is ASKING, himself, for an early release.
Basically, folks, this is what we call an unrepentant killer, a clear danger to the community he lives in. A kinder term would be "vigilante."
Either you believe in the process of law or you don't. And whether or not you do, the law is clear: Homeowners do have the right to defend themselves, but they don't have the right to be judge, jury and executioner.
[ edited by msincognito on May 6, 2003 08:37 AM ]
posted on May 6, 2003 01:58:02 PM new
No - I don't believe in the process of law when it gives someone license to come in my home and rob me and endanger me. I am not unthinkingly obediant despite the school system's best efforts.
You need to wake up some night and find an intruder in your bedroom so you understand having your home violated. Or are you in the business so you want to be safe next place you burgle?
I have yet to see in one of these articles that his gun was illegal.
Would you still feel the same if he had killed him with a kitchen chair?
Is your opinion of the community so poor they need the right to enter this man's house and steal to be safe? This is just normal behavior for the community that we must allow?
Then they are still all wrong and he is right all alone. A majority does not make it right to steal. That is not democracy, it is a mob even if they vote on it formally.
I realize that goes against much thought now that morals are relative and if we all agree we should help ourselves to farmer Brown's chickens he should respect the majority.
posted on May 6, 2003 02:14:06 PM new
I haven't read that his weapon was illegal but it may be true because he did have some previous problems with local thieves. He used a sawed off shotgun it this case.
As a homeowners lawyer said, "This is laughable. The burglar is in a no-lose situation". "If he burgles you and takes something valuable, the police will never find him. If you catch him in the act, he will sue you."
With this policy in force, we now have criminals who are referred to as , *self employed burglars*. HaHaHa. And their victims may become *jailbirds*.
How may victims of home invasion defend themselves? Let's take the shotgun out of the case and substitute it with a baseball bat.
In the following story, The victim (Mr. Gapper, the homeowner) defended himself with a baseball bat. Mr Gapper said after the case: "I was told if anything happened to the intruder I could be looking at manslaughter. I was petrified at the time."
A judge yesterday reignited the debate over the law on self-defence by asserting that a householder who repeatedly beat a burglar with a metal baseball bat had been using "reasonable force".
David Summers, 21, a drug addict, suffered a broken wrist, fractured elbow, cracked ribs and a cracked skull. He had broken into the Peterborough home of Lee Gapper, 20, and his lodger George Goodayle, 21, both self-employed builders.
Sentencing Summers to a year in jail for burglary, Judge Hugh Mayor QC said: "They used reasonable force. I am making no allowance for reduction in sentence for any hurt you may have received in a failed attempt of a citizen to arrest you.
"You brought that on yourself and I have no sympathy for those who receive hurt while committing a crime. It is a very serious offence," he told Peterborough crown court.
Summers was arrested minutes after fleeing the house and complained to police that his potential burglary victims had assaulted him.
posted on May 6, 2003 03:07:45 PM new
I have never been the victim of a burglary per se but I have been the victim of an attempted home invasion (related to the stalking of a roommate.) What protected me? Good door locks. A motion-activated light system. A portable phone. I went to an interior room, called the cops and waited.
I fully believe self-defense is justified. But vigilantism is not, and any time you use deadly force you better be darn sure that you're within the bounds of the law or you could face consequences yourself. This doesn't mean someone has "license to come into my home and endanger me and rob me" or that I'm "blindly obedient." But if I hurt someone and the law later determines that I wasn't justified, guess what? I have to face the consequences. If you don't like it, find someplace that doesn't follow the rule of law. Like, say, Texas.
And no, I am not a criminal. That was really not worthy of you at all, gravid. I don't think I've ever seen you make such a spurious or insulting argument before.
