---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point which is to do with what the law calls mens rea. To be honest and fair to the promoter of the Bill, I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend has construed the Bill accurately in that respect, but I hope to come to the issue in due course. Before that intervention, I was referring to the joint statement by the CPS and ACPO, which deals with what happens if an intruder dies. It makes it clear that if a householder acts in reasonable self-defence and an intruder dies, then the householder will still have acted lawfully. However, it goes on to caution that if, having knocked someone unconscious, a householder decides to hurt or kill an intruder in order to punish them, or if a householder knows about an intended intruder and sets a trap to hurt or kill them, that householder would be acting with excessive and gratuitous force. In such cases, the householder would be prosecuted under the existing law. Even if the Bill were passed, a householder in those circumstances would still be prosecuted. Where is the additional advantage to the public from that change? One of the concerns that has been expressed today is about what happens if the police turn up and believe the intruder rather than the householder. The statement makes it clear that"““The police weight all the facts when investigating an incident. This includes the fact that the intruder caused the situation to arise in the first place.””" However, it also makes the fair point that investigations are necessary, because"““On occasions people pretend a burglary has taken place to cover up other crimes such as a fight between drug dealers.””" Importantly, the police and the CPS have said that they are determined that when cases are investigated,"““they must be investigated and reviewed as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible . . . An experienced investigator will oversee the case . . . and the case will be prioritised to ensure . . . a quick decision.””" The statement concludes:"““It is a fact that very few householders have ever been prosecuted for actions resulting from the use of force against intruders.””" On the day before that statement was issued, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Ken Macdonald QC, who is in a sense the chief prosecutor in the country, made his position clear:"““The law is on the side of householders . . . It is only in the most extreme circumstances that householders are prosecuted for violence against burglars . . . the law understands that when people are under attack in their own homes they cannot judge precisely the level of their response . . . So long as they do no more than they honestly and instinctively feel is necessary in the heat of the moment, that will be the strongest evidence that the householder has acted lawfully. Indeed we routinely refuse to prosecute those reacting in the heat of the moment . . . So householders who have killed burglars . . . have not been prosecuted. Householders who have shot burglars have not been prosecuted. Householders who have stabbed burglars have not been prosecuted. Householders who have struck burglars on the head, fracturing their skulls, have not been not prosecuted.””" Mr. Macdonald goes on to say that the CPS has been able to find only a handful cases in which prosecutions have resulted from domestic household burglaries.