Jump to content

Made to measure water tanks


LeonR

Featured Posts

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

I was asking you for an actual example

 

 

You defend your own property and still end up being charged by this "nampy pamby" society that protects criminals as its "not their fault - they had a broken home" etc etc.

 

 

A businessman who attacked two thieves caught red-handed in a night-time raid was arrested after defending his property, a court has heard.

Andrew Woodhouse, 44, was today on trial facing assault charges on the two raiders he found stealing diesel from his business.

A jury heard how Woodhouse grabbed a fence post one was carrying as a weapon - and used it to fight back against them.

The father-of-five - who says he has repeatedly been a victim of crime at his gardening company - kept hold of the two burglars until police arrived.

But the court was told it was Woodhouse who was then arrested and accused of using excessive force.

The thieves ended up with £75 fines - but businessman Woodhouse could face a prison sentence if he is found guilty of attacking them.

Defence lawyer Andrew Taylor said: 'These thieves thought they would have nice easy pickings that night.

'Many people would have given up and just claimed on their insurance but Mr Woodhouse is made of sterner stuff.

'He showed stoicism, courage and fitness to chase them. One of the men was armed and went to attack him. He acted in lawful self-defence.

'He agrees the red mist came down which you can understand when his business has almost been wiped out by crime.

'If it hadn’t been for him these men would not have been caught. Where are we in society when a person cannot act in self-defence to protect his property. That is what Mr Woodhouse was doing.'

 

There was another example : a home owner in Derby chasing a burglar, rugby tackled him which knocked his teeth out, he was also charged and fined.

 

And another :

 

 

A man accused of killing a burglar who broke into his home and stole his wife's handbag has been found not guilty of murder and manslaughter.

Key points:

  • Benjamin Batterham apprehended Richard Slater after he broke into his Newcastle home in 2016
  • The Crown claimed Mr Batterham choked Mr Slater to death
  • Mr Batterham's lawyers claimed Mr Slater died from organ failure, and toxic levels of the drug ice in his system
 

Benjamin Batterham, 36, spent two weeks on trial in Newcastle Supreme Court over the 2016 death of 34-year-old Richard Slater.

Mr Batterham was charged with murder on the basis he intended to kill Mr Slater when he performed a citizen's arrest after the burglary.

There was also a back-up charge of manslaughter as the Crown argued he acted illegally and went too far.

However a jury found Mr Batterham not guilty of both offences.

Upon hearing the verdicts, he clasped his hands and appeared relieved.

Mr Slater's family could be heard yelling and screaming as they left the court.

 

The court heard that following the burglary, Mr Batterham chased Mr Slater 330 metres down the street and a struggle ensued.

Mr Slater bit Mr Batterham as the fight between the pair then escalated, the jury was told.

Mr Slater had three heart attacks, lost consciousness and died in hospital after his life support was turned off.

 

During the trial, the Crown argued Mr Batterham choked Mr Slater to death.

But Mr Batterham's lawyers said Mr Slater died from organ failure as a result of his obesity, an undiagnosed heart condition and the toxic levels of the drug ice in his system.

Justice Desmond Fagan spent several hours directing the jury and told them the chokehold on Mr Slater would normally constitute an assault but they had to decide if it was an unlawful act during a citizen's arrest.

He said Mr Batterham was permitted by law to use reasonable force to detain 

someone who had committed an offence and stop them from escaping until police arrived.

Justice Fagan said Mr Batterham would be not guilty if he believed he was defending himself from being bitten and attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

You defend your own property and still end up being charged by this "nampy pamby" society that protects criminals as its "not their fault - they had a broken home" etc etc.

 

 

A businessman who attacked two thieves caught red-handed in a night-time raid was arrested after defending his property, a court has heard.

Andrew Woodhouse, 44, was today on trial facing assault charges on the two raiders he found stealing diesel from his business.

A jury heard how Woodhouse grabbed a fence post one was carrying as a weapon - and used it to fight back against them.

The father-of-five - who says he has repeatedly been a victim of crime at his gardening company - kept hold of the two burglars until police arrived.

But the court was told it was Woodhouse who was then arrested and accused of using excessive force.

The thieves ended up with £75 fines - but businessman Woodhouse could face a prison sentence if he is found guilty of attacking them.

Defence lawyer Andrew Taylor said: 'These thieves thought they would have nice easy pickings that night.

'Many people would have given up and just claimed on their insurance but Mr Woodhouse is made of sterner stuff.

'He showed stoicism, courage and fitness to chase them. One of the men was armed and went to attack him. He acted in lawful self-defence.

'He agrees the red mist came down which you can understand when his business has almost been wiped out by crime.

'If it hadn’t been for him these men would not have been caught. Where are we in society when a person cannot act in self-defence to protect his property. That is what Mr Woodhouse was doing.'

 

There was another example : a home owner in Derby chasing a burglar, rugby tackled him which knocked his teeth out, he was also charged and fined.

 

And another :

 

 

A man accused of killing a burglar who broke into his home and stole his wife's handbag has been found not guilty of murder and manslaughter.

Key points:

  • Benjamin Batterham apprehended Richard Slater after he broke into his Newcastle home in 2016
  • The Crown claimed Mr Batterham choked Mr Slater to death
  • Mr Batterham's lawyers claimed Mr Slater died from organ failure, and toxic levels of the drug ice in his system
 

Benjamin Batterham, 36, spent two weeks on trial in Newcastle Supreme Court over the 2016 death of 34-year-old Richard Slater.

Mr Batterham was charged with murder on the basis he intended to kill Mr Slater when he performed a citizen's arrest after the burglary.

There was also a back-up charge of manslaughter as the Crown argued he acted illegally and went too far.

However a jury found Mr Batterham not guilty of both offences.

Upon hearing the verdicts, he clasped his hands and appeared relieved.

Mr Slater's family could be heard yelling and screaming as they left the court.

 

The court heard that following the burglary, Mr Batterham chased Mr Slater 330 metres down the street and a struggle ensued.

Mr Slater bit Mr Batterham as the fight between the pair then escalated, the jury was told.

Mr Slater had three heart attacks, lost consciousness and died in hospital after his life support was turned off.

 

During the trial, the Crown argued Mr Batterham choked Mr Slater to death.

But Mr Batterham's lawyers said Mr Slater died from organ failure as a result of his obesity, an undiagnosed heart condition and the toxic levels of the drug ice in his system.

Justice Desmond Fagan spent several hours directing the jury and told them the chokehold on Mr Slater would normally constitute an assault but they had to decide if it was an unlawful act during a citizen's arrest.

He said Mr Batterham was permitted by law to use reasonable force to detain 

someone who had committed an offence and stop them from escaping until police arrived.

Justice Fagan said Mr Batterham would be not guilty if he believed he was defending himself from being bitten and attacked.

 

So are you objecting to the "namby-pamby" law which says you can use "reasonable force" to defend yourself or your property, where this is decided by a jury depending on the circumstances? Bearing in mind that "reasonable force" can include GBH or even killing an intruder or someone attacking you if you're in fear of your life? (see the second case you quoted)

 

Does that mean you think that it's OK to use "unreasonable force" i.e. vigilantism?

 

Or are you objecting to the fact that the cases came to court?

 

Does that mean you think someone other than the courts (e.g. the police) should decide if somebody is guilty or innocent?

 

I don't understand exactly what you're objecting to as being "namby-pamby", unless you prefer mob rule or vigilantism or "he was obviously guilty" -- do explain...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't quote you chapter and verse, but this is why you cannot put broken glass on the top of a wall to deter intruders. You saw this in the past, but it was stopped as the villains sued an were compensated.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Peanut said:

I can't quote you chapter and verse, but this is why you cannot put broken glass on the top of a wall to deter intruders. You saw this in the past, but it was stopped as the villains sued an were compensated.

The law covering this (Occupier's Liability Act) dates back to 1984, so it's hardly a recent "namby-pamby society" issue though, is it?

 

https://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/using-barbed-wire-glass-intruder-prevention-methods.html

 

Also:

 

"The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides some protection to householders. If a trespasser suffers an injury during the course of a crime, for which he is subsequently convicted and for which he could be sent to prison, he will only be able to sue the householder if he gets the court’s permission to do so. The court is unlikely to grant permission unless the householder had taken grossly excessive steps or had not been acting to defend himself, his family or his property from an offence."

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a boat on a creek in Kent that had a large hand painted sign "Warning - Acid Traps" by the door. I think they did not want intruders. 

 

Interestingly the PLA, who had allowed the site to be leased for moorings, insisted that the sign was taken down. 

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

The law covering this (Occupier's Liability Act) dates back to 1984, so it's hardly a recent "namby-pamby society" issue though, is it?

 

https://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/using-barbed-wire-glass-intruder-prevention-methods.html

 

Also:

 

"The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides some protection to householders. If a trespasser suffers an injury during the course of a crime, for which he is subsequently convicted and for which he could be sent to prison, he will only be able to sue the householder if he gets the court’s permission to do so. The court is unlikely to grant permission unless the householder had taken grossly excessive steps or had not been acting to defend himself, his family or his property from an offence."

Sorry, but I wasn't an intruder, I jumped up to see if I could see the ball/dog I lost. Now pay me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

Sorry, but I wasn't an intruder, I jumped up to see if I could see the ball/dog I lost. Now pay me.

Still not sure what you're trying to say -- that this the fault of "modern namby-pamby society" laws from 40 years ago?

 

P.S. You were the one who brought up intruders... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Still not sure what you're trying to say -- that this the fault of "modern namby-pamby society" laws from 40 years ago?

 

P.S. You were the one who brought up intruders... 😉

Nothing to do with, "modern namby-pamby society," just that you may still be sued if you put glass on top of your wall to discourage intruders. The long legal diatribe, makes little difference, you would first have to secure a conviction for a crime, and the deterrent considered reasonable. If the purported offender has not yet committed a crime, and comes up with a viable excuse, then you are going to have to pay. No good saying, they might have, ever if you believe it to be true.

 

The intruder was from that long legal diatribe quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.