When farmer Clifford Pearson was attacked by an intruder in his bathroom in the early hours, he acted instinctively and wrestled him to the ground.
Despite being naked, the 48-year-old held on to the man for ten minutes until police, who had been alerted by his girlfriend’s 999 call, arrived at the farmhouse.Whew! It all turned out for the best, then?
But the couple were horrified to be told 12 hours later that the 20-year-old intruder had been given only a caution for common assault and was not being taken to court or punished further.Huh..?
Officers attempted to justify the decision by saying it was the man’s first offence, he had a ‘good job in the Army’, had no recollection of what he did and was intoxicated at the time.Hmmmm, have they got so fed up of the defence’s excuses, they’ve just decided to cut out the middle man?
Or is this man perhaps known to someone in the North Yorkshire Police farce?
Police said they could not charge the man with burglary because there was no evidence of intent.How about the assault, then? Do you just get a caution for that, these days?
A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said: ‘We have every sympathy for Mr Pearson and his partner.’Well, that’s nice. I’m sure they are very reassured that – should chummy return – you’ll be full of sympathy as you stand over their corpses…
"But Uncle Grahame, won't that still show on my f****** record?"
ReplyDeleteThis might be good policework, but ...
ReplyDeleteHey, look on the bright side....
ReplyDeleteAt least Mr. Pearson isn't being charged with assault or false imprisonment.
Now if they could prove he'd been found on enclosed premises for some unlawful purpose, he might at least have been fined a penny.
ReplyDeleteStill at least Mr Pearson didn't harm this unknown man - he'd have found himself in real trouble.... you know, "taking the law into his own hands," a very serious matter.
Sorry Jools but this is a bit of a non-story. As much as I devoutly believe a man has the right to use 'Terminal Force' to protect his own (and I have, the guy spent 6 weeks in ICU), this sounds like the drunken squaddy stumbled into house to use the toilet.
ReplyDeleteWhich of us has not done something that stupid while rat arsed? Let him cast the first crushed Special Brew tin.
As PT rightly says, there is little the police could actually charge him with and again as PT rightly asys the Benefit Scrounger...ooops sorry the 'farmer' should count his blessings that he didn't go all 'Tony martin'.
Can any l;egal beagle who reads this post tell me if someone broke in to my home and I ties the ratbag up and phones the police to say that there had been a break in and the intruder was still on the premises, then put said intruder in the garage so that s/he did not dirty the house, polioe did not call and I forgot about the intruder, where does the fault lie?
ReplyDeleteSorry, so it is perfectly OK to enter someone elses home in the middle of the night and assualt them?
ReplyDeleteI must admit I am struggling to find any expanation for the police (in)action on this one. Is it because he did not make a forced entry? In that case if the intruder had climbed in through a window would that also have been fine?
If he was someone important I could understand this as special favours but I must confess I'm baffled here...
Jiks, according to the report the bloke entered through an unlocked back door and the fact he only punched the farmer once in the chest but didn't smell of alcohol suggests very strongly that he was out of his head on something else. He probably wandered around the kitchen in the throws of a fit of the MUNCHIES!!
ReplyDeleteOf course its not ok to enter anyone's property and drunkenly punch them but its hardly a hanging offence; aggravated trespass or a minor assault at worst.
Perhaps the Captain, who seemingly knows more of matters military than I, could confirm that even if this member of the armed forces is only a cook he would have still done Basic unarmed combat and would be aware that punching someone in the chest is about the single most ineffective blow (unless you're a sassman or a Ninja)? He probably meant to punch one or both of the farmers he could see in the solar plexus...but missed all three.
ReplyDeletePunching someone in the chest pretty much confirms that the 'perp' was off his head on something or the other.
The legal difference between a door and a window is that an unlocked door is expressly made for walking through, an open window isn't....although not being a lawyer but a former villain I will stand to be corrected by those who know more about such things.
Shinar
ReplyDeleteYou have been watching too many Seagal movies. Unarmed combat, sorry the E & D team would put a stop to that, can't have any aggressive or forceful behaviour nowadays. It's a Service now not a Force. Wouldn't want to upset the customers. The chap was probably only looking for his Ipod.
@ ANON, yes my bad I forgot that today's Crown Forces have to comply to the Respect Agenda...and Health & Safety of course.
ReplyDeleteYep, I'll go with the ipod too.
(Child of the 80's that I am I still watch every Seagal film that comes out, no matter how awful....its sad I know).
Without knowing any details of thiscase and waiting for MTG to start an anti-police rant perhaps the police are just going by guidelines written down by the government? We don't make the laws,we enforce the ones passed by Parliament. I get fed up of people moaning about insufficient punishments to me,it's the courts that pass the sentences. I would love stronger laws,every criminal in jail is one less out on the street committing crime.
ReplyDeleteJaded.
In one sense I am flattered by Jade's stalking.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it was only under this unbearable duress that I agreed to a blind date with the WPC. On the big day she met with a nasty accident and ended up in A&E. In her enthusiasm to leave work, she had ripped off a large patch of flabby arm tissue which had become welded to the radiator.
If there is anything which really turns me off, it is asymetrical bingo wings. I am truly sorry Jaded but you must look elsewhere. If you are really so hopeful, have you tried kissing a frog?
Nothing very surprising here, then. Just further confirmation, if it were needed, that if something unpleasant happens you're on your own: kick the crap out of the intruder/assailant, tell him if he shows his face again near your gaff he'll get seriously hurt. Certainly don't give yourself any grief, or waste your time, by calling Plod.
ReplyDeleteThis is the territory of the Theft Act 1968, Burglary s.9(1)(b):
ReplyDelete(b)having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.
It is an OR condition. They don't have to prove that he intended to steal; only that he was a trespasser and inflicted GBH. (See also CPS guidance.)
There might be an argument as to whether the punch constitutes harm of that level, but as he was resisting the lawful detainment the householder was entitled to exert, that looks like s.18 OAPA1861.
Whatever - it should be obvious that it was not the police's call to decide it was a cautioning offence. It should have been passed to the CPS for consideration and all that blether about "couldn't prove intent" is smoke.
Being intoxicated is not a mitigating factor; it's an aggravating one. Being a soldier is not a mitigating factor, although the police seem to have offered it as if it is. If anybody else would have had the file passed to the CPS, then so should he.
It may be significant that it was Northallerton. That police station has officers whose partners are in the forces and there is a close social relationship between personnel of both services.
@ Woman On The Rafters :P
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, looks like it turns on the question of whether it was Common Assault, ABH or GBH and ,as you say, for it to be 'burglary' then it seems it would have to have been 'grievous'. Obviously the police decided that the punch had not been particularly serious, despite what the victim said, and only a minor assault.
From my own experience I can say that if the drunk had punched the the farmer's wife in the chest then that would have been 'grievous'.
"but as he was resisting the lawful detainment the householder was entitled to exert, "
A householder exercising his right to detain a burglar? Chances are he'd be sued for 'unlawful imprisonment'.
"This might be good policework, but ..."
ReplyDeleteIs it 'good policework' if it leaves the victim so clearly unsatisfied that they have to go to the press?
"Hey, look on the bright side....
At least Mr. Pearson isn't being charged with assault or false imprisonment."
Heh!
"...this sounds like the drunken squaddy stumbled into house to use the toilet."
It's a possibility, but then you'd expect a shamefaced apology and basket of flowers for the wife, wouldn't you? Not hiding behind the police.
"I must admit I am struggling to find any expanation for the police (in)action on this one. "
Me too, especially in light of WoaR's comment.
"Child of the 80's that I am I still watch every Seagal film that comes out, no matter how awful....its sad I know"
ReplyDeleteOh, that can be forgiven. It's not Jean-Claude Van Damm, after all... ;)
" I get fed up of people moaning about insufficient punishments to me,it's the courts that pass the sentences."
This didn't get to the court, though, that's the point. The police haven't left themselves room to blame the CPS on this one.
"Being a soldier is not a mitigating factor, although the police seem to have offered it as if it is."
Oddly enough, the cops that kicked seven shades of whatsit out of this drunken squaddie didn't seem to find much 'mitigating' about it...