First it was Tony Martin the farmer. Then it was Tony Martin the Political Prisoner. Next, Tony Martin the author:
Tony Martin, the farmer jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar is planning to write an autobiography called My Right To Kill, it was claimed yesterday.
John McVicar, the former armed robber turned author, said he would be editing the book that Martin will write after his release from prison next week.
Is he accepting advance orders? If so, mark me down for a copy right now.
The farmer’s Tory MP, Henry Bellingham, who has consulted him over legislation he wants to frame to give householders greater rights to protect their property, called for the book to be called something “more tactful”.
Alright, how about ‘I Love The Smell of Dead Burglars In The Morning’?
Tony Joynes, the uncle of Fred Barras, said it was “absolutely ridiculous” for Martin to stand to profit from his nephew’s killing. “This autobiography is making money from death,” he said.
Unlike making money from burglary which appears to be perfectly acceptable.
Mr Bellingham is right, though. Tony Martin may sell more books with the proposed title, but using it just undermines the case for allowing home-owners to defend themselves, if necessary with lethal force. There’s a reason supporters of abortion don’t talk about the right to crush babies’ skulls and supporters of inheritance tax don’t talk about the state’s right to act as vulture – expressing an idea in a moderate and rational way can make the difference in many minds between its acceptance and its rejection by others.
An interesting case for comparison.
Note in particular the grudging response of the police, who cannot accept a not-guilty verdict. Not: “People who threaten others with knives for a living run the risk of getting hurt”, nor even “It is not for us to comment on the results of a trial”. (The latter surely the proper response.)
Mr. Broom’s mother said he was “a very nice kid”…
who engaged in armed robbery.
Lovely.
Well, it’s fortunate we still have juries, who can inject some common sense into these cases.
If it was a Blunkett appointed judge, all these people would be found guilty of murder and thrown in the nick until they rot, I have no doubt.
Peter,
I do actually agree with you. I hope he settles on a more sober title for his book. Quite aside from the disastrous PR implications of calling it ‘My Right To Kill’, that is also to grossly mis-state the case which is not, and never should be, a ‘right to kill’, but a ‘right of self-defence’ which is something altogether different.
I think he should go for a book title with a little oldye worlde charm…
“An upright Burglar-mangler’s almanac”
Surely the problem in this case with discussing self defense is the legal principals involved and his failure in a court of law to show that he needed to use deadly force to defend himself.
Speaking of juries, just what kind of a jury DID convict Tony Martin? It seems impossible to me that any sane jury would convict in that circumstance.
Happily, they refused to convict the Columbian diplomat. But what happened at Martin’s trial? Did they manage to stack the jury or what?
Here’s a title:
“MINE, MINE, MINE”
or
“Evolution in Action”
A little tact can be a wonderful thing. Even so, I want a copy.
Speaking of juries, just what kind of a jury DID convict Tony Martin? It seems impossible to me that any sane jury would convict in that circumstance.
There were strong accusations of jury intimidation throughout the trial, with feral gypsy hooligans from the dead thief’s criminal family said to be staring menacingly at the jurors to ensure they knew to come to the ‘right’ decision … or else.
There was some investigation into these accusations right after Tony Martin was convicted, but it seems nothing came of it.
David, yes. I have a right to deny a beggar my money even if it means him starving, but I don’t have a right to kill a beggar. Equally, I have a right to defend my home even if that means a burglar or rapist ending up dead, but I don’t have an abstract right to kill that crook. The right is to self-defence (even to the point of lethal force) not to kill.
It’s at moments like these, listening to people like Peter, that I shudder awake and realize that the US and UK are insome ways actually very different countries.
Peter,
The point of law in question, is, I believe:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967
Which, as I understand it, is taught to those who practise Martial Arts. The point of law turning on the consideration of “reasonable” and “in the circumstances”
So, your logic is fine up to this statement:
The right is to self-defence (even to the point of lethal force) not to kill.
This is correct, as far as you go, however, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you exerted reasonable force in the circumstances.
At the end of the day Tony Martin could not do that and to be frank the jury, regardless of suggestions of tampering, had no choice but to find him guilty.
The same point of law means that if you have a fight, even if another person starts it, which ends up with you losing it utterly and killing someone, the chances are you will be charged with Manslaughter.
It happens a lot. The circumstances of Martin’s case made the press, but there are plenty of people who haven’t.
There was some investigation into these accusations right after Tony Martin was convicted, but it seems nothing came of it.
Indeed, I don’t think it even got as far as being referred to the CPS, there wasn’t enough evidence.
Speaking of juries, just what kind of a jury DID convict Tony Martin? It seems impossible to me that any sane jury would convict in that circumstance.
Kevin, based on the key points of British Law, I’m not sure they had any choice.
Its easy to “spin” the Martin thing into a man against the system special interest case. But at the end of the day despite some claims which were not upheld in appeal court, Martin shot a man in the back who was climbing out of the window.
The man should not have been in Martin’s house, however, he had defended his property and the invaders were running away. Anything that happened next cannot fall under the “reasonable force” criteria of defending yourself. His previous record of shooting at trespassers and announcing in public that he’d kill anybody he found on his land made his defence even more shaky as it was all the easier to demonstrate that Martin presented a danger.
When did jury nullification die in the UK? It certainly has a history there.
“Reasonable force” is unreaonable. It puts the onus on the victim to guard his behavior. I prefer the Texas (I think) approach, that once somebody crosses your property line without your permisson, it’s open season on their ass.
Faced with an assailant whose capabilities are uncertain, it’s unreasonable to expect the victim to take the risk of a “minimal force” approach. The safe solution is “shoot them, then shoot again point blank to the head, to be certain”. Or have you never watched a movie where the “knocked out” bad guy gets up behind the hero, and pulls a knife…
Just curious, are prosecutors elected in the UK?
Amelia enquires:
“Just curious, are prosecutors elected in the UK? ”
Sadly,no. Nor are judges, magistrates or law officers of any kind.
It can be seen as one of the greater deficiencies in the UK system, depending on your point of view.
O’Neill:
I would have shot him in the back, too, or anywhere else I could have drawn a bead before he got away. Now, neither you nor anyone else has to agree that that would be “reasonable”, but the fact would also be that you would be incompetent to judge the case simply because of the fact that your property wasn’t involved. You — and/or the jurors, or anyone else — could decide how to handle the thief in your home, and you could stand on exactly the same principle of self-determination in refusing to take that shot, to the complete exclusion of anyone else’s thinking about the matter.
The crucial logical connection to be made here is that there is no prospect of human life without private property. Property is life, to human beings. This is the whole reason why thieves have been so summarily dispatched throughout the ages, and there still are people to whom contemporary sophistries about the matter are completely impertinent.
And you could reach for the last card in this case to say that Martin’s imprisonment certainly is “pertinent”, but that would be judging the case by a non-essential. The fact that the government put him away has absolutely nothing to say to the right of the thing.
That punk is the one who took his life in his hands when he decided to enter another man’s home. To hell with him, instanter. Martin is right, and if he sits in prison, then it only means that the law is wrong, which is a fact with far greater implications.
There was a similar case in Durham, NC around 10 or so years ago. Again, the homeowner was accused of shooting and killing one of two burglars, a young teenaged boy, in the back as they were fleeing. There was some question as to whether the homeowner knew that the thief was fleeing, and much use of autopsy evidence. To make the matter more explosive, the homeowner was white and the burglars black. (Durham is about 40%-60% black (depending on whether you consider the whole county or merely the city limits) so this sort of accusation can be explosive.)
After a long trial, there was a hung jury, and a decision not to retry. It is unlikely that any jury would have convicted the homeowner, but an acquittal was also unlikely. Unsurprisingly, opinion broke to some degree along racial lines.
Peter, this statement: “I don’t have an abstract right to kill that crook. The right is to self-defence (even to the point of lethal force) not to kill”
How do you arrive at the logic that the right to use self defence “to the point of lethal force” is something different than the right to use self defence “to kill” ?
to use lethal force = to kill
I don’t understand how you imagine there is a difference?
Dave O’Neill,
You correctly cite the law as it currently stands but the old common law position (as reaffirmed in R .v. Hussey 1924) provided a far more generous interpretation of self-defence:
In defence of a man’s house, the owner or his family may kill a trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it, in the same manner as he might, by law, kill in self-defence a man who
attacks him personally with this distinction, however, that in defending his home he need not retreat, as in other cases of self- defence, for that would be giving up his house to his adversary.
That was the law until 1967 when the Criminal Justice Act was passed in order to heavily circumscribe this right of self-defence by placing an automatic burden on the person being attacked to respond only in manner that was objectively reasonable.
Even so, there appears to be a entrenched assumption in both the police and the judiciary that all active responses to threats are unreasonable unless proved otherwise. This means that the common law position has, in effect, and by a combination of state code and cultural bias, been completely turned on its head.
I shall probably do a full post on this.
Joe, well the difference is one of circumstance. I don’t have a right just to run around executing people who have committed a crime. It is for the courts to punish such people. But if he poses a threat to my family or property – which as an intruder he does – I have every right to self-defence. If the side-effect of my exercising that right is his death, so be it.
another book added to the buy list…
David,
Even the 1924 Common Law is open to a lot of legal wrangling, the key point, I suspect (although I’m no lawyer) surely hinging on:
the owner or his family may kill a trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it
Reading on, this seems to be describing a situation where somebody is trying to remove you from your land by force. Unless there is something which describes property (e.g. theft of items not the home), I’d say that under this interpretation you would have a lot of problems proving you could shoot a trespasser or burlgar without establishing intent.
I suspect that is why the Criminal Justice Bill in 1967 was entered to make the descrepancy clearer.
This is, of course, the crux of the problem. What is “right” and “wrong” is terribly simply for a layman, but terribly hard to establish in a legal framework which can work both ways.
Beck,
You can say that all you like, but the law is very clear on this point.
As I recall it is also very clear in many of states of the US.
Not every State has the same laws in this regard as Texas or Washington.
“Reading on, this seems to be describing a situation where somebody is trying to remove you from your land by force. Unless there is something which describes property (e.g. theft of items not the home), I’d say that under this interpretation you would have a lot of problems proving you could shoot a trespasser or burlgar without establishing intent.”
Reading the case so it applies only to real property is just obtuse. Of course the passage refers to chattel and not only real property – there is no indication that it is limited only to real estate, and no reason to read it that way.
Someone who breaks into your home to steal your DVD player is, under any common sense reading of this clause, trying to forcibly dispossess you of your property. Breaking into your house is indeed the use of force, stealing your DVD player is dispossessing you of your property. Their intent to forcibly dispossess you is demonstrated by the fact that they broke into your home – no need to put them on the couch for a couple of sessions of psychoanalysis.
I cannot imagine any 19th or early 20th century judge applying this standard in the way suggested by Dave.
T.Hartin
“I cannot imagine any 19th or early 20th century judge applying this standard in the way suggested by Dave.”
Neither can I. The ruling in the Duffy case (which was actually a successful appeal against conviction in first instance) was based on what a man may lawfully do to defend himself and his home.
The ruling in the Duffy case (which was actually a successful appeal against conviction in first instance) was based on what a man may lawfully do to defend himself and his home.
Which is the problem, as the law you quote is quite clear:
In defence of a man’s house, the owner or his family may kill a trespasser who would forcibly dispossess him of it
The article of the statement is a man’s house, making no mention of individual items of property or the like. The other issue, of course, is that this only obliquely mentions what to do if you are away from your home.
David, do you have full details on the Duffy case so we can see the specifics?
Dave O’Neill,
I shall try to find the full report and, as I mentioned above, draft a full posting on this issue. Need to get down to Law Library so not today.
Well, don’t rush 😉
I’m off to the US tomorrow and will not be taking a computer on this trip.
O’Neill,
“It is not so desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, as for what is right.”
It always astonishes me to run into someone who does not understand how crucially important is this principle.
It always astonishes me to run into someone who does not understand how crucially important is this principle.
Likewise, I am always astonished at how little understanding people have for the facts of life over their principles.
Plus ca change and all that.
I would shoot an intruder in my house. You have a right to kill when you are the one whom is being hunted (or burgled). Tony Martin was broken into a number of times before he took action into his own hands due to the incompetence of the police, and further on the incompetence of the legal system in the UK. Maybe if we didn’t have a lawyer in charge of the country things might be different/better? All the people who believe that Tony Martin was in the wrong put yourself in his position with your family at home you would defend your lively hood by any means possible. The government are and always will be if Labour are in charge incompetent and full of do-gooders. Tony Martin is a hero