A Norwich family today spoke of their shock after being told that no action could be taken against a drunken intruder, despite him being caught in their home by police.As mentioned in the comments at Insp Gadget's blog, that's because the youth entered via a window, and so it's not breaking and entering or burglary, but trespass (a civil matter).
However - and I realise this may be distressing for someone not au fait with the legal niceties, this is a bit of a cheek:
Miss Evans, 31, said: “I feel like there is nothing either of us can do, I just don’t feel secure in my home after this. We haven’t been offered any counselling or anything like that by the police either, so we feel let down really.Now, I know the police get blamed for a lot, and sometimes it's more than justified, but for not offering counselling?! For something that isn't even a crime..?
“We just think that people should know that they are not necessarily safe in their own home. We are now suffering the consequences of knowing that people can get away with doing things like this.”
12 comments:
This story has upset me a bit. I feel quite traumatised. Can I get any counselling, or anything?
It's rather frightening how deeply (and quickly) this nonsense has become embedded in the public psyche, isn't it?
I'm rather surprised to hear that going through a window changes it from breaking and entering to trespass. I'm sure they're correct but if so the law is an ass. Still entered, didn't he? Or does using the window somehow make it that the house absorbed him? Mental.
It looks like this was a case of a genuine mistake by someone with no previous, committed while drunk, and while I can have sympathy for the family, as it must have been frightening, I suspect that a good bollocking by a burly rozzer would have the desired effect on the intruder.
Having said that, I would like to see a justice system that punished offences committed while drunk as if the perp had been completely sober. Whatever you did, you did it, and the drink cannot be used as an excuse. After all, you chose to get drunk in the first place. And secondly, in view of the likelihood of the police letting someone like this go, the careful householder should make sure the intruder has been persuaded never to do it again before the police arrive.
"the careful householder should make sure the intruder has been persuaded never to do it again before the police arrive"
But you know what the outcome of that would be....
Sadly, you're right. Although I have been told, by a serving officer, that there are certain ground rules. If you genuinely believe you are in danger of attack, and if you can justify your actions as self-defence and not punishment or revenge, then you are likely to be left alone. If you look at all the cases recently where householders were prosecuted for biffing an intruder, there is nearly always an element of punishment or revenge involved. There is a crucial difference, when investigating noises at night, between carrying a torch (reasonable) and a baseball bat (evidence of an intention to harm). And yet torches can be very big and heavy if you want them to be.
Plod and the local CPS must be useless. They could have charged him with "being found on enclosed premises" (s24 Vagrancy Act 1824) or a simple breach of the peace for which he could be bound over.
Whether an unauthorised entry to a premises is a burglary or not depends on what the intruder does, or intends to do, NOT on how he gained entry. These circumstances are not clear from this post.
Like Zaphod, I too have been affected by the issues raised in this story and yet can find no helpline number. Julia, this is very slack.
The 'crime' of breaking and entering does not exist. (Although it may have been part of the Larceny Act which was repealed in 1968)
Burglary is entering a building/part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, cause damage, rape or inflict GBH. Or having entered as a trespasser (without any intent) goes on to steal or inflict GBH.
Found on Enclosed premises requires the offender to be there for an unlawful purpose,which is back to square one.
These days Breach of the Peace has been neutered by case law and there would only be the power to arrest the 'burglar' if he was violent or threatening, which does not appear to have been the case.
A more common problem is someone caught in the staff area of a shop or in a Hospital ward because they 'got lost looking for the toilets'. Having not stolen anything and with no way to prove any intent, they cannot be charged.
The law is an ass but the blame lies with the law makers....
And of course the lawmakers are our very own, supremely talented Members of Parliament. Why are we so lucky?
"I feel quite traumatised. Can I get any counselling..."
I should run a disclaimer! :)
"It's rather frightening how deeply (and quickly) this nonsense has become embedded in the public psyche, isn't it?"
It's rather like any bizarre or totalitarian society - it creeps up on you, until you start to wonder whether you are the sane one after all...
"...but if so the law is an ass."
As Blueknight points out, the blame lies with the law makers. We don't really benefit from having a government stuffed full of lawyers, do we?
"..I suspect that a good bollocking by a burly rozzer would have the desired effect on the intruder. "
Is that even allowed these days? He'd be suing for distress!
Post a Comment