which is the case in practice

Sadly the majority of people will be totally unaware of the typical application of the rule, on the basis that the media can only be bothered to report this type of thing on a slow news day or when there's a bit of potential to stir up some controversy amongst its readers.

I bet the majority of people aren't even aware of the numbers of homeowners actually punished for such a thing as a proportion of how many times it actually happens.

I can only think of two instances - Tony Martin (shooting people in the back whilst running away) and Munir Hussain (clobbered intruders with a cricket bat after chasing them down the street).

Googe came up with this snippet from a Houses of Parliament document:

"An ?informal trawl? by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had attacked intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. Only 7 of those appeared to have resulted from domestic burglaries.
Examples of prosecutions included a case where a man lay in wait for a burglar on commercial premises, caught him, beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.
Examples of decisions not to prosecute included a case where a woman took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull."

so it doesn't strike me that the typical application of the rule is in any need of a change at all. But that view doesn't sell newspapers, so the public at large get a very one-sided view of what actually happens.

Posted By: CWC, Sep 5, 11:17:59