---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If ordinary people were to read the Bill, they would think that ““trespass”” applied to anywhere on their property. They might not read the small print that refers to a"““building or part of building””." When we examine the definition of a building, as I hope that we eventually will, the situation gets even more difficult and confusing. Let us continue to examine proposed new subsection (1A) to section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 by considering what is meant by the"““defence of persons or property””." One might think that that is a relatively uncontroversial aspect of the Bill that raises no significant problems, but that is not the case. Property does not have to be either lawfully owned or legal property in its own right. Let us suppose that the legal owner of a TV or video discovered that it had been stolen by another person in their tower block. If the owner decided to go and repatriate it, they might think that they were entitled to use disproportionate force to recover it, because they would be acting inside a building to prevent crime. However, the burglar in his flat could also use disproportionate force to defend the stolen property from its lawful owner and fight back, so the situation would ratchet up. Each person is legally entitled to use disproportionate force against the other. That is surely not the Bill’s intention, but it is the inevitable and logical consequence of the way in which it is drafted. The lawful owner of the property is preventing crime while operating inside a building, and the burglar, who is also inside the building, is defending property, even though it is not his. According to the Bill, each can use disproportionate force against the other. Who knows where it will end, except with two corpses on the carpet? Surely, that is not the Bill’s intention.