THE ADVERTISER SAYS: Time to put victims of crime first

Imagine anyone’s reaction on answering a knock on the door to be confronted by two strangers, one carrying a knife, forcing their way into their home.

Businessman Vincent Cooke fought to keep the intruders out of his home in leafy Bramhall, Cheshire, in the knowledge that his wife and young son were expected home and in the struggle would-be burglar Raymond Jacob was fatally injured with his own knife.

Mr Cooke was subsequently arrested and charged with murder before being released on bail.

It later emerged that Jacob was a violent criminal and drug addict who habitually carried a knife and had spent almost half his adult life in jail.

Jacob is the third intruder to be stabbed to death by home owners protecting their property and family in the last six months, prompting a government pledge to clarify the law on victims confronting intruders.

Do you agree? Post your comments below or click to join our poll.

Contrast that with 52-year-old Steve Grayson, of Woodsetts, who was left in a critical condition after challenging burglars when he returned to his home last Friday.

Mr Grayson did not have a chance to decide what might be regarded as the “reasonable force” which courts use to judge whether the reaction of householders repelling intruders is appropriate.

Not only did the gang attack him in his own kitchen, one of the intruders chased him down the street as he tried to flee and viciously attacked him with blows to the head, leaving him in a critical condition.

If, for whatever reason, Mr Cooke had been unable to confront serial violent criminal Jacob at his Bramall home, he too might have ended up in intensive care fighting for his life...or worse.

Justice secretary Ken Clarke has had months to clarify the law to protect victims who protect their property and family from also becoming the accused and facing trial for assault or murder.

As we have said before, the law too easily condemns and prosecutes victims for their knee-jerk reaction to a threatening situation when debate is not an option, when the burglar himself may react violently and with fatal consequences to avoid apprehension and what started out as a burglary has escalated into a murder inquiry.

Rational conclusions reached by a third party in the controlled environment of a court and with the benefit of hindsight can hardly accurately mirror the terror of being confronted by an intruder when there is no measure of the level of danger and what therefore constitutes “reasonable force.”

As the situations above clearly demonstrate, householders faced with a stranger in their home run the risk of being the victims of violence as intruders press on with their intention to rob or resort to assault to avoid being identified and apprehended.

Burglars don’t come with a sign to indicate whether they are armed or not, dangerous or passive, on drugs or alcohol or sober and, if confronted, are likely to react violently or scarper.

It’s time the law was changed to protect the victims and send out a strong message that anyone entering premises with criminal intent surrenders all rights to protection from the law they are intent on ignoring.