householder cases

• A householder is morally justified in using force to defend themselves, others in the home, and their property against an intruder; however, the following questions remain:

  1. is a householder morally justified in using ANY amount of force?
  2. Is a householder acting wrongfully in defending themselves, people on the property, or their property, regardless of whether force was used?
• section 76 (5) (A) of the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 states that in a householder case, the degree of force will not be regarded as reasonable only if it were grossly disproportionate.
• The law now appears to support the view that a householder now has a moral right to defend themselves, or their property using force- but only to a certain degree.
• The terms 'reasonable', 'disproportionate', and 'grossly disproportionate' do not have statutory definitions and will need judicial interpretation when a case has come to court.
• The fact that terms like 'reasonable', 'disproportionate' or 'grossly disproportionate' do not have statutory definitions is intended to cover situations where a burglar or intruder enters the defendant's property, in addition to places of both residence and work, where there is an internal means of access between the parts:

  1. where an intruder in the shop area confronts a shopkeeper, their family could be at risk in the conjoined residential part
• This extended defence doesnt apply to customers who happen to be in the shop and use force against an intruder, the normal rules of self defence apply to them.
• The defence is available even where the mistake the defendant made was unreasonable. a question can be asked if it can be classed as too generous to judge defendants based on the facts that they unreasonably believed to have been true:

  1. if the defence isn't allowed where the defendant honestly believed, however unreasonable, that they were to be attacked then the defendant is at risk of conviction when they really were not at fault.
  2. Against this, there is the need to protect the innocent victim who was attacked due to a mistaken belief