---

Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill

The Bill does not state that, but common sense tells us that such an action would be regarded as grossly disproportionate. In the second case cited by the CPS, several people trespassed on to private land to go night-fishing. They were approached by a man with a shotgun who threatened to shoot them. They ran away, but one was shot in the back with 40 shotgun pellets. Again, that was probably grossly disproportionate; moreover, the Bill would have offered no protection in such an incident because it took place outside. In a third case, a householder laid in wait for a burglar who tried to burgle his shed, and shot him in the back. That is the ““Tony Martin circumstance””, which, as we know, given the concessions already made by Opposition Members, would amount to grossly disproportionate force. The question then arises of why we need to change the law of self-defence in the first place. I suggest that we do not. The law is clear and we have to have consistency in the law; having different tests for different circumstances is fraught with danger. We have already discussed what would happen when such incidents occur in, and outside, buildings; and, for example, whether a dormobile constitutes a building. I mentioned earlier the example of a security guard taking such action on a building site. As it stands it would constitute reasonable force, but if he is in the construction hut, the question arises as to whether the hut constitutes a building—a marginal point. If it is on completed premises, it probably constitutes a building. Would he have the nous to work out when he can and cannot use the defence provided in this Bill? What about allotments and garden sheds? Clearly, the allotment itself is not a building; the garden shed may or may not be, depending on the size of the structure. What about people who are attacked who are not in any form of building? The victim of a street mugging could use only reasonable force. We know that a phone box is not a building, because there is case law to that effect. The victim of a phone box mugging could defend himself with nothing other than reasonable force. Such an incident could easily happen, because as we know, a lot of drug deals are done in phone boxes.