---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

My hon. Friend raises an interesting set of circumstances, but the force was probably not even reasonable if it did not lay out the offender. On the definition of ““building”” as it applies to the Theft Act 1968, cross-referred to the Bill, a number of interventions asked about the position of mobile homes, which is an interesting way of summing up the anomalies in that regard. I mentioned dormobiles and motorised caravans, which are used for the ordinary purpose of a motor car during most of the year but are occasionally lived in, usually when the owner is on holiday. While the vehicle is being lived in, it is undoubtedly an inhabited vehicle, but when it is being used for the purposes of a car, it is not. The exact moment at which it becomes an inhabited vehicle might be difficult to ascertain. Is it when the family has loaded their possessions before going on holiday, when they take to the road, or when they park up at the seaside? When they use the vehicle as a car when on holiday, is it covered? A whole series of anomalies are created in relation to mobile homes. The Bill is not good enough in this respect. It must be much more specific and clear in its definition of a building. We heard earlier about the Englishman’s home being his castle. What if it is a ruined castle? Is that a building? What if it is ruined castle now being restored? At what stage does it become a building? Perhaps it is a house; perhaps it is not. The problem is that the Englishman’s home might be his castle, but it might not be his building for the purposes of defending it under the Bill. What about the position of trains? We still have sleeper trains. If people break into one cabin from another, the chances are that it would be covered by the Bill. Were the great train robbery to occur now, however, the train driver and the post office workers who were victims would not be covered by the Bill, because the mail van, and the driver’s cab, would not be considered parts of a building for this purpose. I suspect that the cabins might be. What about a prisoner who invades the cell of another prisoner in jail? The prisoner, who is the ““owner”” of the cell, might wish to use disproportionate force to defend his property from the prisoner invading his cell, and the next thing is that we have a prison riot on our hands. That is encouraged by the terms of the Bill. As a result of the different tests of self-defence in different circumstances, the anomalies are legion. The definition of a building should have been drawn a lot tighter, rather than trusting to luck, sticking a finger in the air, testing the wind and referring to the Theft Act. We have had a lot of discussion today about the definition of grossly disproportionate, which is the meat of the Bill. Clause 1 would insert new subsection (1A)(a) into the Criminal Law Act 1967 and introduce the phrase,"““the degree of force used was grossly disproportionate””." If the defence is that the force was disproportionate but not grossly disproportionate, the prosecution has to prove that the force was not just disproportionate but grossly disproportionate.