Skip to main content

Reasonable Force

We are still stuck with the issue of defining what is "reasonable force". What I think it "reasonable" the tories may think is "grossly disproportionate". That is where the problem lies.

The law clearly needs to be changed to identify what sort of force is allowed to be used in:

  1. Defending yourself
  2. Defending your home
  3. Defending others.

The current system is fraught with confusion as it is a matter of judgement as to what is "reasonable".

The CPS may have issued "guidance", but that is insufficient. We need clarity. Such clarity needs a public debate.

Roman Law is interesting and clear.

For example in table 12:
12. A person committing burglary in the night may be lawfully killed.
13. A thief in the daytime may not be killed unless he carried a weapon . . . .

Personally I would feel that is beyond "reasonable force". However, we do need some definition of what is "reasonable force". I believe the French rule is that if a burglar uses violence then they do so at the risk of their own life. Now that is something which perhaps is a "reasonable" position. I have tried to rummage out the French position on the web (my French is passable) without any luck.

This gives a better analysis of the Twelve tables. This includes the following phrase:
"The laws of France and Italy excuse the homicide of an intruder who commits burglary or theft with violence. (Code PĂ©nal de France, III, II, Arts. 322, 329.) (Codice Penale, II, III, Art. 376.)"
I have not been able to check the validity of that phrase, but it seems that it gives a start in resolving this dilemma.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…