Self-Defence

Yesterday I highlighted what I think are inadequacies in the law of self-defence and questioned the value of vigilante action by people caught up in the current disturbances. Today I would like to examine both concepts further, the former roughly in context of the latter.

This has been prompted by reports today of several local communities taking to the streets to protect what they value. Residents of Northcote Road in Clapham formed a human cordon preventing anyone wearing a hoodie entering their streets. Residents of Dalston did much the same. Sikhs in East London came together to protect their temple. To all of them I would say well done for protecting what you hold dear. I hope there are no negative consequences in the future.

There are inherent risks to this type of behaviour. People are leaving themselves open to criminal prosecution. They may do this without realising this or intending to. An example of these unintended consequences would be chasing off would-be looters. Strictly speaking, the offence of assault does not have to involve physical contact, merely perception that harm will be visited on the individual. Therefore, a group of large men chasing a couple of teenage kids could well fall within that definition. It may or may not be likely that such charges would proceed further than the raised eyebrow of a police officer and there is a decent chance self-defence could be argued if they did. Even so, it is a big risk to take.

How did this situation develop? Robert Peel when first founding a police service made it clear that police officers were to be ordinary citizens upholding the law within the law rather than a special group immune from it's effects. This remains true today. Police officers can still only use reasonable force, it just so happens that their job is defending people and property and therefore they are in a position to use it more. Conversely, everybody has the right to perform an arrest. Obviously things are not that simple. Police rightly have the right to undertake activities that would otherwise be considered criminal. Such examples include exemptions from certain traffic laws under specific circumstances, carrying items which would otherwise be prohibited and a wider scope to arrest and detain people. The first two, obviously, are necessary for them to carry out their role effectively. The latter exists as a function of the role of police in society (private citizens may perform an arrest when a crime is being committed, police can arrest individuals in order to prevent a crime or to allow it's effective investigation. As I doubt most individuals have the time, skills and infrastructure to conduct a criminal investigation this seems fair enough).

The question is, how far can ordinary citizens go in the course of their everyday lives and in exceptional circumstances such as the last few days?

At this point I will stress that although I have studied law this is NOT a definitive legal guide. What I am writing is my opinion and perception of the situation as it stands. If you have the misfortune to find yourself in trouble for defending yourself and your property, get a lawyer and do what they say!

As I said previously, human cordons and chasing off "hoodies" would probably fall quite nicely under the banner of self-defence. Even if a large group of non-hoodies did the chasing I would think that this would still seem reasonable although already we are straying into contentious territory. Likewise wrestling someone to the ground and sitting on them until the police arrived if they were attacking someone else or looting would probably be OK. Although a lot of force is being used, by pinning them, you are ensuring your safety and that of others by putting them in a position where they are unable to lash out. What about doing the same to a hoodie approaching a cordon of you and your neighbours? In the absence of other circumstances this would probably be unacceptable as no specific offence has been committed (arguably public order offences have been but let's gloss over that since they can be quite hard to prove and are probably better left as a tool to allow coppers to nick people who are being obnoxious twats rather than be used as reasons for citizens arrest) even if there was little doubt as to their intention. However if they sauntered through the cordon and started squaring up to a shop window, your case for self-defence get's much stronger. The law allows for pre-emptive strikes so long as intention is clear and criminality imminent. Complicated isn't it?

And the above are by no means set in stone. There is still the human element of those involved in the legal process. A vicious prosecutor will attack and might break your self-defence case. Similarly the jury or the magistrate may or may not like you/what you were doing. Of course they are told to be impartial but that's a hard state to achieve. Do you want to run the risk?

Now the thorny issue of using things other than your hands. The police have special dispensation in law to carry batons, CS gas and, on occasion, firearms. Even then, this only exists when on duty. Private citizens do not have this right. Weapons such as guns, knives, swords and pretty much anything designed to cause injury of death to people are expressly illegal. Items which could be dangerous are also banned although one is permitted to have them if they are part of one's trade. Don't let that put you off going round B&Q this Saturday but don't delay putting whatever you buy into the garage/shed. There is a final important caveat and that is one of intent. If you carry an item with the intention of using it to cause injury then, regardless of what it is, it becomes an offensive weapon. Obviously the list of items that can be weaponised is endless but it is the intent that counts. Therefore, if something happens to come to hand in the heat of the moment, it will not be classed as a weapon however the same item would be in different circumstances. A good example of this would be sleeping with items by your bed. A brick is obviously a weapon as there is no other (obvious) reason to have a brick beside your bed. What about a heavy torch used to hit an intruder? On one hand, you could keep it there in case you had a power cut (and many people do) and you just so happened to reach out and grab it in panic. However, if the torch is just to hit people, it's a weapon.

This is all convoluted and confusing and bluntly, leads to innocent people getting criminal records for behaviour that can barely be classed as criminal. If I was being awkward I would suggest that people are being prosecuted for defending their right to a private and family life as defined in the Human Rights Act (see previous post). For this reason, I think the law needs clarifying. I do not think a universal right to bear arms is the way forward. If nothing else, it will complicate issues around crimes involving weapons and potentially make life worse for the law-abiding citizen. Currently, if the police see someone with a gun, knife or other specific weapon it is illegal and they can act accordingly. Changing this would confuse matters to a dangerous degree.

What about improvised weapons? Stories are being released of people defending their property with baseball bats, snooker cues and table legs. Here things get more complicated. I don't support the population as a whole arming themselves. However, the law should view sympathetically those that do in extremis. Put simply, in situations like the last few days, people protecting their community should be allowed to use more than their bare hands and be entitled to the protection of the law rather than the discretion of police officers on scene.

As I said yesterday, a step forward would be to change the word, "reasonable" to the word, "necessary" in relation to force in the context of self defence. I think it would also be helpful to update the concept of self-defence (this is a bit of an academic point but bear with me). Currently it is a defence meaning in essence you still broke the law but you're being let off because you did it for the right reasons. I think this criminalises natural human instinct and is overall unhelpful. Instead make it a basic right thus creating a presumption of innocence for the person using force rather than a presumption of guilt.

The downside of this is that I can see the criminal subspecies that have been perpetrating the recent rioting crying self-defence at every possible opportunity and using it like the human rights act to cover all manner of sins. For this reason I would suggest that the police should be allowed to exercise common sense in their approach to dealing with violent crime (they know who the repeat offenders are) and a common sense based approach by the Courts possibly linked to greater disclosure of past criminal offences at trial.

What does everyone else think?

JR

London Riots

There has been rioting in London for the past three nights. Last night was the worst. Disorder was rife in the world's finest city. Few areas were left untouched. I was lucky. I was in one of the affected areas before everything kicked off. I got out.

As well as violence and arson looting has reached epidemic proportions.

Who the fuck do these bastards think they are? What gives them the right to destroy the livelihoods of innocent people? Why do they think it is their entitlement to help themselves to whatever they see fit?

I live next to a prison. I hope that very soon the perpetrators of this outrageous behaviour will become my neighbours.

The opposition benches and some media commentators have already started making excuses for this citing poverty, deprivation and cuts. Bollocks! Not all those in poverty are rioting and looting. Not all those rioting and looting are in poverty. The people committing these crimes are united by one thing and one thing only. They are arrogant, narcissistic, selfish, stupid and contemptible excuses for humanity who think it acceptable to ignore the laws of this great nation when it suits them.

The powers that be need to take action and they need to take it now.

The police  need to be given the equipment they need to disperse these crowds. This includes, but is not limited to, water cannon, baton rounds, effective protective equipment and more effective personal defence equipment. They then need to be left to get on with their job. The bureaucratic governmental interference with police work must stop. Absolve police of lengthy form filling and arbitrary targets... let them get on with being coppers. Unfortunately, people who choose to appropriate and propagate unrest and violence on such a scale may be hurt when the police step in to stop it. Live with it. If they don't want to get hurt, they don't have to get involved.

In the longer term, police pay must be increased, their pensions safeguarded and their powers and abilities respected. Again, they need to be left to do their jobs and satisfactorily rewarded for it. We also need more police officers. It is that simple. Last night, the Met was unable to keep up with all the trouble having to race between scenes and hastily prioritise events. They did this with the assistance of other forces but, from what I can tell from the press, London was not always in their control. This is not a criticism of the police. I think they did a fantastic job under extraordinary circumstances. Their courage and bravery should be commended.

The courage of the ambulance services and the fire services should be noted and commended at this point. They have continued to do their duty treating people caught up in the violence and trying to minimise the damage caused by this. They have done this in addition to their normal workload and often coming under fire from the mobs whilst doing so. This takes bravery, professionalism and courage and I am grateful we have such services to rely on.

The Human Rights Act should also be repealed. We in Britain are a civilised nation. Legislation setting out how to treat others decently is as insulting as it is patronizing. Currently, the act is abused by wrongdoers - both criminal and civil - to try (and sometimes succeed) to get off with their misdeeds because they don't like the consequences of their actions and so their human rights must have been violated. This charade must stop. The Act should be repealed and in the mean time, the judiciary encouraged to take a more purposive (and pragmatic) approach to applying it.

Finally, people need to be given the right to defend themselves and their property. People may argue with the latter. Yes human safety will always take priority over material objects however the value of property should not be under-estimated. I have many things which I will vigorously defend should the need arise. Most don't have massive physical value but enormous sentimental value. This value is intangible but is still deserving of respect (the world would be a pretty bleak place if things were considered only on their monetary value). This is one of the main reasons why, "reasonable force" is utterly insufficient when applied to self-defence. Changes in the law recently suggests that Courts should put themselves in the position of the defendant to assess reasonableness in such cases. This is a step forward but in my opinion still pretty thin. In my opinion, the word "reasonable" should be substituted for the word "necessary" giving ordinary, decent people the full and unwavering protection of the law when protecting themselves and what is rightfully theirs.

That said, much as I am furious with the animals perpetrating this behaviour, I don't think vigilante action is the way forward. Taking on the rioters in direct conflict is simply lowering ourselves to their level. In addition, the disturbances caused by this would have to be dealt with by police. This could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back and lead to anarchy. Nobody would benefit from this. Better stay inside during the evenings and allow the police to get on with the excellent work they do. By doing this, we can allow them to assume that anyone out on the streets at night has a nefarious motive. If we want to make a statement I would urge participating in the cleaning operations going on around London. By doing this we can show the rioters that we are better than them, we are above their pathetic behaviour and we will not have the environment we live in spoiled by them.

Finally, may I refer you to the excellent blog Police Inspector Blog. It is written by a serving police officer and provides commentary from a police perspective on issues affecting us all.

I hope that tonight doesn't provide an encore for the trouble we have seen but I fear it might. In any event, I hope this dies down promptly and civilisation can be restored. In the mean time, I wish all police, fire and ambulance crews the best of luck in the days to come. I hope we shall see no further injuries amongst your ranks.