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
Arts, Books, Britain, History, Society

Book Review: Hearts And Minds

SUFFRAGISTS–SUFFRAGETTES

Smashed windows, lobbed bombs and underhand tactics. A fascinating new book in this 100th year of the suffragette movement casts new light on the bitter rivalry between the women who fought for the vote. The war between the sisters.

A USEFUL mnemonic for remembering the difference between suffragists and suffragettes is ‘Millicent: non-militant’.

Millicent Fawcett and her suffragist crowd were the peaceful ones who trundled around Britain in horse-drawn caravans, waved embroidered banners, dropped leaflets from hot-air balloons and used the art of gentle persuasion.

The suffragette Pankhurst and her troupe were the ones who went around smashing shop windows, bombing pillar-boxes and slashing paintings in the National Gallery.

Jane Robinson’s lively new book on the subject, published in this 100th anniversary year of the Representation of The People Act of 1918 – that, at last gave women the vote – is an excellent source of reading for fleshing out those spare bits of general knowledge.

Suffragists, Robinson tells us, were rude about suffragettes, calling them a “dictatorship movement of the sort that drives democracy out”. Suffragettes were rude and curt back, saying that suffragists were “staid, so willing to wait, so incorrigibly leisurely”.

The author of this book brings all these straight-backed Edwardian ladies to life, telling the story of the centrepiece of the suffragist movement: the Great Pilgrimage of 1913, in which thousands of suffragists walked all the way to London from far-flung corners of Britain for a mass rally of 50,000 in Hyde Park.

The aim was to drive the world’s attention (and that of stubborn prime minister Herbert Asquith) to the growing swell of opinion in favour of the women’s vote – and to prove women had the ability to turn the world upside down without violence.

 

THEIR peaceful protest proved to be the prototype for others, from the Jarrow march of 1936 to the Greenham Common peace camp of the 1980s.

Did the pilgrimage do any good? Well, trying to get Asquith to change his mind was like banging your head against a brick wall, and it would take a four-year World War to bring about the Act of Parliament for which the campaigners yearned.

But it was their suffragist training that gave women the confidence to step into men’s jobs when the war started; and by their war efforts in factories and hospitals they “worked out their own salvation”, as Asquith himself put it.

On a sunny morning in June 1913, the Great Pilgrimage began – the Watling Street Pilgrims setting off first, for their five-week walk from Carlisle.

It was thanks to a sensible piece of sartorial advice for the pilgrims – that skirt hems should be taken up four inches to prevent them getting caked in mud – that skirt lengths began their slow progression up the leg from that moment on.

Some pilgrims wore their smart new Burberry raincoats (“airy, light and porous … the ideal coat for the Pilgrimage”, according to Burberry’s own advertisement). Lady Rochdale, carrying her rolled umbrella, strode out side-by-side with Emily Murgatroyd, a weaver at a cotton mill since the age of ten. In those class-ridden days, this pilgrimage was the first coming-together of women from all walks of life – though the wealthier ones did enjoy the luxury of posting their dirty laundry home and picking up parcels of nice clean blouses en route.

The Land’s End Pilgrims started next, then the Great North Road Pilgrims, then the North Wales Pilgrims, and so on, until the Brighton and Kentish Pilgrims stepped out in the final week, all fixing their compasses on Hyde Park.

One of the less literate pilgrims spelled “suffrage” wrong in her diary – “sufferage”. Robinson coins this spelling mistake as a useful word to describe how some of them suffered for their cause. Vast swathes of the public couldn’t tell a ‘gist from a ‘gette, and classed them all as “pantomime villains” who deserved to be beaten up or pelted with rotten tomatoes, stones and rubbish.

In Birkenhead the Pilgrims were pelted with coal – not by disaffected men, but by women and children, reminding us that there was vociferous female as well as male “antis”, who believed that women should shut up and (as one poem went) be satisfied with “The right to brighten earthly homes / With pleasant smiles and gentle tones”.

To a woman, they picked themselves up, dusted themselves down, rearranged their sashes, and started all over again. They wore body armour in the form of pieces of cardboard which they moulded to the body in the bath and then allowed to dry, so they fitted snugly. The more “sufferage” they endured, the stronger their sense of sisterhood grew.

 

LUCKILY, there were just as many kind and supportive locals across the country who gave them hot baths, as well as crumpets for tea and beds for the night. By the day of the Hyde Park rally on July 26, the atmosphere in London was celebratory.

From the gates at all four corners of the park, thousands of pilgrims poured in. Seventy-eight speakers stood up on platforms, announcing that the “tide had turned”. An hour later, bugles sounded, and the resolution was proposed: “This meeting demands a Government measure for the enfranchisement of women.” It was passed unanimously.

A page later, Asquith’s pompously anticlimactic reply to the suffragists’ post-rally letter demanding that he take notice will have many readers banging their heads against a brick wall. “I feel bound to warn you,” he wrote, “that I do not see my way to add anything material to what I have lately said in the House of Commons as to the intentions and policy of the Government.” In other words, “Nice try, but no cigar.”

The suffragettes continued with their usual business of window-smashing and raiding Downing Street – all of which, the suffragists believed, did more harm than good to “the cause”, blackening the reputation of campaigners. Everyone was so busy smashing things up or not smashing things up that none of them noticed that “the war to end all wars” was creeping up behind them.

During that cataclysm of a war, women really proved their worth. By 1915, the slogans on their banners had changed to: “Shells Made by a Wife may Save a Husband’s Life”. And indeed they did.

Suffragists and suffragettes alike did astonishingly demanding war work, including running hospitals on the Western Front.

The great suffragist Katherine Harley – who had come up with the idea of the Great Pilgrimage – was killed in 1917 by a shell while caring for refugees in Serbia.

“We can’t give these suffragists and their militant sisters much in return,” Robinson writes, “except a promise to use the vote they fought so hard to win and, wherever it’s necessary, to keep on fighting.”

– Hearts And Minds by Jane Robinson is published by Doubleday for £20

Standard
Business, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Digital Economy: Many small firms not able to cope with cyber attack

SCOTLAND

ONE in five businesses in Scotland is unprepared for dealing with a cyber-attack, raising fears that the economy is at risk unless action is taken.

A Scottish Government survey of more than 3,000 firms has revealed 19 per cent of them are “not equipped” or “poorly equipped” for dealing with an attack.

The research indicates that the private sector is at risk if hackers deploy viruses to disrupt the Scottish economy, which could also threaten the personal information of firms’ customers.

. See also Digital interfacing must be embraced by public sector

The survey comes just months after a malware attack wreaked havoc on NHS Scotland as hackers deployed a virus that sealed off vitally important files and demanded payment to unlock them.

The findings have sparked calls for more help from the Scottish Government to ensure firms are better prepared to deal with such incidents.

In 2015, the Scottish Government set a target for Scotland to become “a world leading nation in cyber resilience” by 2020. The UK Government has previously blamed Russia for major cyber attacks and the growing tensions between the two countries have increased fears of another major strike.

Separate research found a quarter of firms are struggling to grow because of the threat of a cyber-attack.

A spokesperson for the Federation of Small Business in Scotland, said: “We know there is a growing digital threat out there for Scottish firms and that is why the FSB offers services to members on this and have made the case to government north and south of the Border for extra help for small businesses.

“Like traditional crime, firms need to keep themselves safe and take sensible precautions. There have been high-profile cases where crooks have got the better of businesses and firms large and small need to protect against that threat.”

The Scottish Government surveyed 3,258 firms as part of a Digital Economy report. It asked them to what extent they felt equipped to protect against and deal with cyber-security threats.

Nine per cent said they were “not equipped at all” to deal with a cyber-attack and 10 per cent were “poorly equipped”. A further 47 per cent described themselves as “somewhat equipped”, while only 30 per cent rated themselves as “fully equipped”.

Standard