» Tuesday, February 1, 2005Householder Defence
Asked if the Prime Minister would admit he was wrong when he said the law should be changed regarding the home defending issue, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister had said the law should be reviewed. What was important, as the DPP had said this morning, was to keep a sense of perspective about how many people had been prosecuted; the figures were 11 people in the last 15 years. What the law allowed people to do was to respond instinctively to a situation. What it did not allow was people who acted maliciously or with intent, but there was a very clear distinction. Ken McDonald made it clear this morning when he said that the law was on the side on householders, and prosecutions of householders who had attacked burglars were extremely rare. Unless there had been wholly excessive force against an intruder, the CPS had declined to prosecute those who had seriously injured or even killed a burglar. This was also backed up by Chris Fox, the President of ACPO. The PMOS said the Prime Minister had been reflecting a degree of public confusion, hence the recent debate resulting in new guidelines, and the leaflet that was produced today by ACPO and the CPS. Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news 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. |
The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...
Search
Supported byRecent Briefings
Archives
LinksSyndicate (RSS/XML)CreditsEnquiriesContact Sam Smith. |
One of the issues raised by those wanting to change the law was that the CPS has on many occasions ‘investigated’ householders – putting them through trauma – only to decide not to proceed.
The statement yesterday does little to change the situation as one will see from reading it
"an experienced investigator" will be assigned to such cases – however there is no definition of ‘experienced’
and
the CPS will make "a quick decision" – but there is no indication if this means in less than 2 years or less than 2 days.
So the area of concern has been sidestepped.
I have e-mailed my local CPS asking for definitions of experience and quick – if I ever get a reply I will post it here.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 2 Feb 2005 on 8:59 am | Link