Category Archives: Legal

Britain, Government, Legal, Scotland, Society

The ‘right to protect property’ and ‘bash a burglar’ laws

PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE

UK ministers toughened up the laws relating to the right of self-defence when protecting property five years ago. The so-called ‘bash a burglar’ laws were introduced to dispel doubts over the right to fight back against housebreakers in England and Wales.

In Scotland, however, something of a grey area still remains.

Legislation was introduced south of the Border in April 2013 backing the ‘householder defence’, which means a homeowner, or an occupier of a property can use ‘disproportionate force’ in the heat of the moment.

A 2016 High Court ruling upheld the guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service – England’s equivalent of Scotland’s Crown Office – stating: ‘You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence.

‘This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.’

Acts of revenge, however, are outside the remit of the law.

But in Scotland, the law was not altered to give greater defensive rights to homeowners because Scottish ministers feared it would lead to a growing number of ‘have-a-go heroes’.

Under Scots law, any self-defence still must be deemed ‘proportionate and reasonable’.

A senior legal expert has said that, if accepted by a jury, self-defence would have the effect of a ‘complete defence’. An accused would be acquitted of the charge of murder or culpable homicide if self-defence was successfully established.

The closest thing in Scots law to the householder defence which exists south of the Border would be the concept of provocation.

Provocation is not a complete defence, but would have the effect of reducing a charge of murder to one of culpable homicide if successfully established.

 

A NATIONAL debate about a homeowner’s right to defend their property took place in 1999 when farmer Tony Martin blasted 16-year-old Fred Barras with a shotgun during a late-night raid at his remote Norfolk home.

Barras was hit in the back and died at the scene after escaping through a window. His accomplice, serial burglar Brendon Fearon, then 29, was also injured during the burglary at Emneth Hungate.

Bachelor Mr Martin, then 54, said he had been burgled at least ten times and had lost about £6,000 worth of furniture.

But he was given a life sentence after he was found guilty of murder by jury with a majority of ten to two.

Prosecutors claimed he lay in wait for the intruders and opened fire from close range. Mr Martin, who said he shot at the intruders in the dark after he was woken by the sound of a window being broken, later had his term cut on appeal to five years for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. He served three years in prison.

He has never returned to his home and now lives at a secret address. He is understood to have slept in his car on some occasions.

Mr Martin was arrested again in December 2015 after saying in an interview he still owned guns. No action was taken because all that was found was a faulty air gun which he held legally.

Fearon received a 20-month sentence. He has since been jailed for supplying heroin. He claimed to have been permanently disabled by Mr Martin but dropped a £15,000 civil claim when he was photographed walking and cycling.

Standard
European Court, Google, Government, Legal, Society

Google deletes 1m links in ‘right to be forgotten’

GOOGLE & SOCIAL SEARCH ENGINES

GOOGLE has been asked to remove 2.4million web links under the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’.

The web giant has deleted 900,665 links from its search results since the European ruling came into force three years ago – including to news websites and government documents.

This comes amidst Google facing its first ‘right to be forgotten’ legal battle in the English courts against a businessman it accused of attempting “to rewrite history” by using the rule to try and hide articles about his criminal past.

The European Court of Justice ruled in May 2014 that Google must remove links to websites that include content that is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”. Removing a link from search engine results makes it very difficult to find online.

Requests have included demands from killers, terrorists, fraudsters and internet trolls who want to hide their criminal pasts.

The court case will be closely watched by convicted criminals and others who wish to hide their past histories.

It involves a businessman – who cannot be named for legal reasons – who was imprisoned for “conspiracy to account falsely” in the 1990s.

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Legal, Politics, Society

Trolls could be stripped of the right to vote

ELECTION LAW

SOCIAL media trolls who abuse MPs could be stripped of their right to vote.

The Electoral Commission, the elections watchdog, said existing legislation on elections, which in part dates back to the 1800s, should be reviewed to bring laws up to date.

It suggested punishments for existing electoral offences, such as losing elected office or being disqualified from being registered as an elector, could also be used for those who abused MPs and candidates online.

“It may be that similar special electoral consequences could act as a deterrent,” the commission said.

A reform of electoral legislation would help in “clarifying and strengthening” existing offences and identifying any gaps in the law, the commission said in evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is investigating the intimidation faced by parliamentary candidates.

The commission also recommended updating electoral law to take proper account of social media posts, so people could see who is responsible for material placed online.

Tom Hawthorn, head of policy at the Electoral Commission, said: “Our strong tradition of free elections are an essential part of a healthy democracy, and people should be able to stand for election and campaign without fear or abuse or intimidation.

“However, many offences in electoral law have not been reviewed or updated since they were first created in the 19th century.”

A Downing Street spokesman said Theresa May viewed the abuse and intimidation of candidates during the election as “unacceptable”, adding: “I think what she should say is that there is a clear difference between legitimate scrutiny and conduct that is fuelled by hate and personal abuse.”

COMMENT 

This is a good step forward by the Government in dealing with internet trolls who are clearly a menace to society. In addition, this writer would like to see additional measures to be considered by the UK Government in dealing with many of these social outcasts who appear to have nothing better to do all day. Other measures to be considered should include the sanctioning of benefits against those internet trolls who encroach or border on the criminality. Internet Service Providers (ISPs), too, should be made liable in banning such individuals from the internet. These measures, and those already announced by the Government, would go some way in removing this unwanted scourge from society.

Vile, rancid and spleen-venting abuse has no part to play in any society that wishes to preserve its freedoms, not jarred by thuggish morons intent on causing misery for others. We need legislation to reflect not only the protection of MPs and parliamentary candidates – who, it has to be said, have suffered the most appalling of abuses – but all citizens of this country wishing to make their voice heard.

In an opposing view:

“There are already perfectly adequate laws. It is an offence to incite violence, to act in a way that puts anyone in a state of fear and alarm, to make a breach of the peace or to indulge in racist, sexist and homophobic abuse.

“It may also be rather more difficult to draft effective new legislation than you might think. Words such as ‘trolling’ and ‘online abuse’ are dangerously nebulous, especially in the context of our long British tradition of cheerfully pillorying those in power. And there is no such thing as a right, in law, not to be offended.” [John MacLeod, Scottish journalist – September 21, 2017]

Standard