---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I have already been cautioned about straying off the point of this Bill. If he wants to speak to me afterwards, I will be delighted to take that up. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Government introduced the phraseology of gross disproportionality—that is Government wording in civil law. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York is trying to do now is to bring criminal law in line with that designed by the Government under civil law. The Minister has asked who Charlie Mayall is. Charlie Mayall lives in a crime-ridden area of Newark called York drive. He resisted an armed break-in by a number of hoodlums some months ago. When he struck one of them, who then made off, the police arrested him immediately. They believed at the time that they could secure a prosecution against him because he had acted unreasonably. As a result, Mr. Mayall appeared in court on three occasions, was dragged to and from Newark police station on many different occasions, lost his job, was subjected to all sorts of personal pressures and lost earnings. Only after seven months of that process was he told by the police that the case had collapsed through lack of evidence and that there was no case to answer. How often, in such cases, do the jury and judge eventually say, ““This is nonsense, there is no case to answer and you have acted perfectly reasonably””? The fact remains that the individuals involved are treated as criminals. They are put under the most enormous pressure yet are ultimately not found guilty.