Downing Street Says » Reasonable Force

Asked how the publicising of the eleven prosecuted cases was going to be handled, the PMOS replied that they would be done in such a way as to take into account sensitivities people may have surrounding them. What could be underlined, however, was that it was a law that was only applied in very rare cases, and the public had an exaggerated view about how often it was used due to high publicity surrounding some cases. It was right and proper that it was put in the correct perspective. The law did allow people to use reasonable force.

Asked what the cases would show, and if published, they would send out the opposite message to people, the PMOS said he did not want to pre-empt the Home Office would do, but from the ones available, people would think the circumstances surrounding them were very unusual and rare. The response was not one that most people would have made in such circumstances.

Asked if the numbers of people who were questioned, and also the numbers of people who were charged, but not prosecuted were going to be published, the PMOS replied that it was a matter for the Home Office to consider. The important point was that people understood what the law reflected, and what needed to be changed was not the law itself, but a misperception instead.

Asked if the Prime Minister had changed his view on the matter, as he had indicted that the law would be changed, the PMOS explained that what the Prime Minister was concerned about was the public concern. That was the reason why the police and the CPS were consulted, as their view was the problem was not the law, but the misperception that must be addressed. The law should not be changed unless it had to be changed; what should happen instead was to spell out what the law meant.

Asked what the Government’s advice to people was if they found an intruder in their home, the PMOS said they could use reasonable force in making that challenge.

Asked if therefore the Government was telling people to challenge intruders, the PMOS said people would do what they considered to be right and safe at the time. What could not be done was to create a series of hypothetical situations.

Asked what would happen if the reasonable force had been used against a burglar who was a minor, the PMOS said he would not get into hypothetical situations. The Home Office should be approached with such questions.

Asked if the use of a weapon in any circumstance was classed as reasonable force, the PMOS said what the cases would show was the sort of things that the relevant authorities believed was unreasonable. He said it would not be right to pre-empt the Home Office by disclosing details of the cases.

Asked if Sir John Stevens felt misrepresented as he was used by the Conservatives to back them, but now appeared to be backing the law, so appearing on both sides of the argument, the PMOS said he admired the journalist’s optimism. He would not be a spokesman for Sir John Stevens, nor would he be dragged into a confrontation about the Opposition. He would gracefully decline both invitations to do so! He explained that there was a real concern as a result of the Tony Martin case that people believed they would be prosecuted if they took on burglars. This was the point Sir John Stevens was highlighting, and there was a need to consult the professionals in the field to analyse what the problem was. The result was that people were confused about what the law allowed.

4 Comments »

At last! Some common sense!
Comment by Andy — 2 Feb 2005 on 12:43 pm | Link
I’m incline to agree with the P.M.
The confusion relating to this law does need clarifying, so people can act accordingly,if the situation arises, knowing they are within their rights to be able to defend themselves and their property without recourse and fear of this particular law.
Comment by Geoff — 30 Nov 2006 on 3:51 pm | Link
I’m incline to agree with the P.M.
The confusion relating to this law does need clarifying, so people can act accordingly,if the situation arises, knowing they are within their rights to be able to defend themselves and their property without recourse and fear of this particular law.
Comment by Geoff — 30 Nov 2006 on 3:51 pm | Link
I’m incline to agree with the P.M.
The confusion relating to this law does need clarifying, so people can act accordingly,if the situation arises, knowing they are within their rights to be able to defend themselves and their property without recourse and fear of this particular law.
Comment by Geoff — 30 Nov 2006 on 3:52 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, January 13, 2005

Reasonable Force

4 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries