Home defence law could become a licence to kill

THE proposed home defence legislation is quite unnecessary because the defence of legal excuse exists in common law, exonerating an otherwise illegal act if it can be justified by the circumstances, for example homicide in self-defence.

Criminal law defines what you cannot do. A law which indemnifies from prosecution anyone using ‘reasonable force’, including homicide, places the onus of proof on the victim.

It is nonsense to talk about the need to clarify the legal situation – this is the job of the judges based on precedent (previous judgments) and the individual facts of the case. If people are injured or killed in the execution of a crime, it is for the police and the DPP to decide whether to prosecute the attacker and for the courts to try the case.

The idea that burglars are regularly and successfully suing their attackers is an urban myth, but even if it were true the fault lies with the judges and cannot be rectified by a vigilante law. Nor can changing the law be justified by one well publicised, highly controversial case involving Pádraig Nally who was found guilty, but whose conviction was overturned by a jury following sympathetic publicity. We already have a vigilante law (1986 Control of Dogs Act) which permits the shooting of dogs by anyone owning sheep, cattle or horses. This has been tested in the courts. A similar law for humans would be a gift for anyone with murderous intent in dispute with a neighbour – all he would need to do is to lure him into the house and shoot him dead, claiming he was a burglar

The requirement to “retreat from an intruder” is an urban myth. Burglaries are normally carried out when the house is empty and, if discovered, the culprit flees.

It is really stupid for the gardaí and the Government to encourage ordinary people to risk life and limb trying to tackle what may well be a desperate, powerful and drug-crazed young man; the idea that an old man armed with a golf club would be a match is sheer fantasy. The advice of the British police is that discretion is the better part of valour. If the bill becomes law, people will keep shotguns and swords at the ready. Out of the tens of thousands of burglaries and theft which take place every year, occasionally someone is tortured to reveal the whereabouts of valuables, but what use is vigilante legislation to an old woman who innocently answers the door to be confronted by a gang of men armed with guns and clubs? This bill appears to be a substitute for garda competence. Rather than tackle the causes of crime the Government introduces another loony law which will only make matters worse.

To give just three examples, it is a crime to walk on the left side of the road, to let a sheep defecate on any road, and accidentally breaking a cup in your house constitutes criminal damage. English law has evolved over hundreds of years and is still valid in Ireland unless specifically expunged and works fine for traditional problems.

Fortunately, the good sense of the gardaí, the DPP and judges prevents silly prosecutions under loony laws, but this bill, which turns the law upside down by attempting to define the circumstances when homicide is justified, and indemnifying assailants, will place the onus of proof on victims and will inevitably be used to carry out revenge attacks, encourage vigilante action and will result in accidental deaths. Despite what politicians say, the 1986 Control of Dogs Act is a licence to kill dogs and a similar act will be a licence to kill humans.

Michael Job

Rossnagrena

Glengarriff

Co Cork