A millionaire whose family was held hostage by a knife-wielding burglar and his two accomplices has been jailed for resisting the burglar, who was himself spared prison.
The man, a wealthy 53-year-old businessman, returned to his Buckinghamshire home from a trip to the mosque together with his wife, daughter and two sons to discover three men had broken into their home.
The masked intruders threatened to kill them if they did not submit, and then tied them up. One of the man’s sons managed to get loose, and ran to the nearby residence of his 35-year-old uncle, who came back with him to try to free the rest of their family.
The gang broke and ran, but one of their number, a 56-year-old career criminal, was knocked down in the back garden, where he was beaten severely by the man and his brother. He was subsequently hospitalised with a fractured skull and brain damage.
The father and his brother were subsequently arrested and charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on the burglar.
The presiding judge sentenced the defendant to 30 months in prison, and gave his brother 39 months in light of the fact that he had faced lesser provocation, accusing the pair of “violent revenge,” and ignoring their defence that the beating had been “taken in the agony of the moment”:
“The attack which then occurred was totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a defenceless man.
It may be that some members of the public or media commentators will assert that he deserved what happened to him, and that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished.
The courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable.”
The judge stressed that the rule of law might be seriously imperiled if vigilantes were not jailed whilst criminals walk free:
“If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”
The injured criminal who broke into his home was chided for a “serious and wicked” attack, but was handed a non-custodial sentence in place of prison. His injuries may qualify him for a disability benefit.
UK law allows victims of violent crime to ‘use no more force than absolutely necessary’ to protect themselves, which in practice can often lead to those who resist and injure criminals facing more serious charges than their assailants…
Via the Daily Mail.
The judge ruled correctly. Self-defense, which includes defense of another person, must not extend to self-appointed administration of justice (revenge; punishment).
So let me get this straight, if you break in and rob people you can do whatever you want without having to deal with the law but if you defend yourself and your home by resisting and fighting the burglars, you get punished for protecting your own property?
Since when has it become normal procedure again that all judges only support the criminals instead of the victims?
The burglar shouldn’t have gotten off… but read closely. Jailing the victims is far from insane here. They brutally beat a nearly 60-year-old man who, by this point was both no longer a threat and completely defenseless, doing grievous injury to him. Just because they robbed you doesn’t make being an old man nearly to death right. Both parties should have been jailed — it’s disgraceful to jail the victim of the original crime and let the perpetrator go free, but it would have been just as disgraceful to jail the original perpetrator and not force the victim to pay for their brutality. They should both be jailed for this, and it’s a miscarriage of justice that either of them got off.
I’d say, a victim who executes an [i]identical type of punishment[/i] to that of the perpetrator is no different than the perpetrator him-/herself, but executing [i]equal judgement[/i] in the right manner is the best thing to do. Being slapped doesn’t always mean you have the right to slap back, but in situations when lives are in danger, self-defense is fine.
But then again, it’s all just utopian thinking…
Court punishment unto the victims is debatable, but letting off the criminals scot-free in addition to medical benefits entitlement caused by their own act that started all this is just wrong.
Hence, LAW FAIL.
alert(‘test’);
the judge is an ARSEHOLE…
STUPID FUCKING U.K LAWS