The Politics Thread

[thebish]

Well in, Ken Clarke. Let's hope that they can apply this to the guy in Swinton that was confronted by four balaclavared intruders, one brandishing a machete, last week.

It's a shame that he didn't run all four of the bastards through.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/clarke-homeown ... 21647.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is he actually changing the law in any way, Bruce? Or is it staying just the same as it was before?

[Bruce Rioja]

Well in, Ken Clarke. Let's hope that they can apply this to the guy in Swinton that was confronted by four balaclavared intruders, one brandishing a machete, last week.

It's a shame that he didn't run all four of the bastards through.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/clarke-homeown ... 21647.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is he actually changing the law in any way, Bruce? Or is it staying just the same as it was before?

My understanding is, Bish, that there'll be clear legislation to clear up what seems to be an extremely grey area.

Not sure if we've had this chat before, but might I canvass your opinion?

[TANGODANCER]

Is the idea of all this legislation to actually provide a deterrent against burglary, or is it more a "you stab me, I'll stab you back" thing? Personally, I'd much rather see something that makes burglars, thieves,muggers etc, think three times about doing it in the first place because the penalties would be harsh enough to make them think the crime wasn't worth the punishment. The repercusions of huge increases in householders killing burglars or the reverse, could blow the whole thing sky high eventually. That's what happens when weapons are used is it not? Is it not also the main reason British police don't carry arms because doing so would encourage criminals to combat it? All seems totally crackpot to me right now.

[Bruce Rioja]

The rozzers issue does make me wonder if householders might be able to buy and legally operate tazers?

[Lofthouse Lower]

I bloody hope so

[Hoboh]

I bloody hope so

An Uzi would be more fun!

[thebish]

Well in, Ken Clarke. Let's hope that they can apply this to the guy in Swinton that was confronted by four balaclavared intruders, one brandishing a machete, last week.

It's a shame that he didn't run all four of the bastards through.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/clarke-homeown ... 21647.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is he actually changing the law in any way, Bruce? Or is it staying just the same as it was before?

My understanding is, Bish, that there'll be clear legislation to clear up what seems to be an extremely grey area.

Not sure if we've had this chat before, but might I canvass your opinion?

I'm not at all sure there is any suggestion of how legislation might be changed at all - perhaps you could explain??

this is what I have heard in terms of quotes:

Mr Clarke accepted that the defence of reasonable force already exists, but said: 'Given that doubts are expressed, we are going to clarify that.

'It is quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes.

'What they are not entitled to do is go running down the road chasing them or shooting them in the back when they are running away or to get their friends together and go and beat them up.

'We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force. (ed. - do we??)

Mr Cameron's official spokesman told reporters: 'The objective is to put beyond doubt the fact that home-owners and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to protect themselves or their property should be able to do that without being prosecuted.

'Precisely how we do that is something we are looking into. Whether it requires changes to law or sentencing guidelines is something we will look at.'

it looks like "no change" to me - unless you can elaborate and explain what exactly is changing...

[Bruce Rioja]

Well, first you'll have to publish the current legislation.

[thebish]

Well, first you'll have to publish the current legislation.

I don't believe I do, do I? If a change is being proposed - surely it will have been spelled out - or else, what is it exactly you are commenting on and asking me to comment on?

From what I can see - it just looks like a giant smoke-screen to get some headlines, get a few tory back-benchers rocks off and mask the huge U-turn Ken just did over sentencing and his widely touted (and not yet delivered) reforms to the criminal justice system...

but - I may be wrong - which is why I am genuinely asking - is there anything of substance actually happening here or not? if there is - what is it?

[Bijou Bob]

There is little of substance in what is nothing more than legislation to allow cost cutting, particularly in the area of legal aid. The UK has the highest legal aid bill in the developed world, hardly surprising when any scrote who isn't working can claim representation on it any number of times.

Apparently, a number of solicitors and barristers were protesting outside the H of P today although i can't see any of the money grabbing bar stewards actually turning up themselves, they'll have sent their students in tutellage. I feel for the poor sods who will have to make do with just the one publically funded Bentley from now on.

[Harry Genshaw]

There is little of substance in what is nothing more than legislation to allow cost cutting, particularly in the area of legal aid. The UK has the highest legal aid bill in the developed world, hardly surprising when any scrote who isn't working can claim representation on it any number of times.

Apparently, a number of solicitors and barristers were protesting outside the H of P today although i can't see any of the money grabbing bar stewards actually turning up themselves, they'll have sent their students in tutellage. I feel for the poor sods who will have to make do with just the one publically funded Bentley from now on.

Perhaps we should be allowed to use reasonable force against Solicitors..

[TANGODANCER]

The rozzers issue does make me wonder if householders might be able to buy and legally operate tazers?

Most of the over-sixties population would probably forget where they'd put them, forget to charge them up or electrocute themselves answering the phone. (Nod to Mrs Brown).

[Bruce Rioja]

Well, first you'll have to publish the current legislation.

I don't believe I do, do I? If a change is being proposed - surely it will have been spelled out - or else, what is it exactly you are commenting on and asking me to comment on?

Yes I think you do being as you're the one banging on about existing legislation - I'm not sure that there is any, which is why I'm saying that it's currently a grey area and am thankful that Clarke is now offering clarity and positive action.

[Lofthouse Lower]

It's hard work reading your conversations, bish

[thebish]

Well, first you'll have to publish the current legislation.

I don't believe I do, do I? If a change is being proposed - surely it will have been spelled out - or else, what is it exactly you are commenting on and asking me to comment on?

Yes I think you do being as you're the one banging on about existing legislation - I'm not sure that there is any, which is why I'm saying that it's currently a grey area and am thankful that Clarke is now offering clarity and positive action.

Bruce - unless my mind is playing tricks on me - YOU asked me for my take on something. I am asking you to clarify just what it is you want my "take" on... that is all! As far as I can see - nothing has actually happened that requires a "take" has it??

what "positive action" precisely is clarke offering that you are pleased about? I really don't know what you are talking about.

[thebish]

here, Bruce, is the current legal advice concerning "reasonable force". Current legislation allows "reasonable force"...

I haven't seen any indication anywhere that cameron or clarke are proposing any change to this. What is it you are pleased about? and what is the "positive action" you talk about?

Reasonable Force

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? And;
was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr. App R 276), (R v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367) and (Archbold 19-49).

To that extent it is a subjective test. There is, however, an objective element to the test. The jury must then go on to ask themselves whether, on the basis of the facts as the accused believed them to be, a reasonable person would regard the force used as reasonable or excessive.

It is important to bear in mind when assessing whether the force used was reasonable the words of Lord Morris in Palmer v R, 1971 A.C. 814;

If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...

The fact that an act was considered necessary does not mean that the resulting action was reasonable (R v Clegg 1995 1 A.C. 482 HL) and (Archbold 19-41).

However, where it is alleged that a person acted to defend himself/herself from violence, the extent to which the action taken was necessary will, of course, be integral to the reasonableness of the force used.

In R v O'Grady 85 Cr App R 315 it was held by the Court of Appeal that a defendant was not entitled to rely, so far as self-defence is concerned, upon a mistake of fact which had been induced by voluntary intoxication.

Pre-emptive strikes

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves: R v Deana, 2 Cr.App.R. 75.

Retreating

Failure to retreat when attacked and when it is possible and safe to do so, is not conclusive evidence that a person was not acting in self defence. . It is simply a factor to be taken into account. It is not necessary that the defendant demonstrates by walking away that he does not want to engage in physical violence: R v Bird 81 Cr App R 110.

Revenge

In R v Rashford [2005] EWCA Crim 3377 it was held:

The mere fact that a defendant went somewhere to exact revenge from the victim did not of itself rule out the possibility that in any violence that ensued, self defence was necessarily unavailable as a defence.

However, where the defendant initially sought the confrontation (R v Balogun [2000] 1 Archbold News 3)

...A man who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is both necessary and reasonable in order to defend himself. If that is what he does then he acts lawfully.

It follows that a man who starts the violence, the aggressor, cannot rely upon self-defence to render his actions lawful. Of course during a fight a man will not only strike blows, but will defend himself by warding off blows from his opponent, but if he started the fight, if he volunteered for it, such actions are not lawful, they are unlawful acts of violence.

[Bruce Rioja]

Yeah, it was that clear

I'll answer your specifics later.

[thebish]

Yeah, it was that clear

I'll answer your specifics later.

I don't really see what's unclear about it - at the moment, cases are tested on their merits according to the principle of "reasonable force". The last time the tories proposed a change (under David Davis IIRC) - they simply wanted to replace "reasonable force" with "all but grossly disproportionate violence" - which is equally subjective and still requires a case-by-case judgement which would have broadly the same parameters.

cameron et-al are also saying that the famous cases like Tony Martin would still not have walked free.

presumably you are happy because you believe the tories have said they will somehow make it simpler or clearer... I will look forward to hearing the basis for your confidence that anything will actually change - considering that they have made absolutely NO proposals at all as to how they might achieve this.

of course - you might just be happy that they have mentioned it... if that is the case - then you you are blessed with the ability to be very easily pleased!

[Bruce Rioja]

As I say - I'll have to come back to you - but are you were telling me that you were perfectly clear on how the law stood before you went trawling through the internet? If so, then I suspect that your trousers are ablaze!

[thebish]

As I say - I'll have to come back to you - but are you were telling me that you were perfectly clear on how the law stood before you went trawling through the internet? If so, then I suspect that your trousers are ablaze!

As clear as it is now post-cameron announcement... I'm just wondering why you are so happy - but, as you said - you will tell me the specifics later, so I'll be patient!

as for "trawling through the internet" - you asked me to quote it for you!