God forbid that it should ever come to pass, but if you were to be confronted by an unwanted intruder in your home – an individual determined to steal your possessions, possibly wreck the house and injure or even kill you or a member of your family into the bargain – what would you do?

Do you surrender arms, or attempt to strike a pre-emptive blow – quite literally – for the law-abiding masses?

We all know the story of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who, in August 1999, shot and killed 16-year-old Fred Barras and wounded his ‘partner-in-attempted-crime’ Brendan Fearon when they broke into his home. Martin, of course, was subsequently jailed. A decision by the Judiciary that, to put it mildly, begat a heated national debate.

Almost five years on and the intruder continues to hold all the aces. As NSI chief executive Tom Mullarkey points out in this month’s Raising The Standard (‘Burglar beware!’, p43), the would-be villain is dressed for the job, has the element of surprise on his side and will not have been asleep for a few hours. Couple that with receding police resources and Joe Householder is almost bereft of any substantial back-up.

Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens recently supported a stronger wording of the law to allow citizens to take more robust action than has previously been considered ‘reasonable’. Sir Ian Blair, the new Commissioner, is (apparently) even more supportive of the innocent citizen.

For the time being, though, it remains the case that western law enforcement philosophy is based upon the idea that the populace surrenders its right to self-protection when others – ie the police service – are contracted and empowered to undertake that very function.

If that ‘contract’ is working, why are businesses having to spend more resources on protective measures? Why are schools and hospitals no longer the safe havens of old?

Security managers are now fiercely expressing their disquiet of the status quo. If they are right in thinking that the ‘contract’ between police and citizen no longer remains valid – and many professionals are of that opinion – it’s high time that Her Majesty’s Government instigated a Judicial review.

Rights to the peaceful enjoyment of property are paramount. We must all be able to inhabit a society wherein the victims’ rights are more important than those of any criminal. Vigilance and self-protection is not vigilantism.

Source

SMT