78 pensioner arrested for fatally stabbing burglar in his own home

[SShaming]

2 burglars break into a 78 year old man’s home armed with screwdriver.

Forces owner into the kitchen whilst one of them goes upstairs.

A fight ensues, leaving pensioner with injuries to his arm and burglary is fatally stabbed. Perhaps with his own screwdriver although this is TBC.

Police arrest pensioner.

On what planet is this right?

And what is the reason to deny him the same process that others get and head straight for a trial Bert?

I assume people are referring to him as a pensioner as it is a useful descriptor to signify his likely age group, potential vulnerability- in the same way they are saying his 'disabled wife' or someone might be referred to as a pregnant woman, young child etc. They didn't target 6ft 30 year old males did they? Why shouldn't this particular aspect of their crimes be made clear?

It will be up to the CPS whether the case goes to trial basically. They will make their decision based on whether it's in the public interest and realistic prospect for conviction whether for manslaughter or murder (not likely with murder but manslaughter is a possibility). If the police investigation concludes that it was clearly self-defence then Mr Osborn-Brooks won't be charged.

But hopefully the other burglar will be found and convicted of aggravated burglary.

It will be up to the CPS whether the case goes to trial basically.

Only if the inquests verdict is unlawful killing ?

But hopefully the other burglar will be found and convicted of aggravated burglary.

If the facts show the dead burglar was attacking the householder, he could be done for attempted murder. Joint enterprise.

I read about a case in the US where a group of burglars broke into a house, one of them was killed by the home owner and the rest of the burglars were convicted of his murder as he was killed during the commission of a felony.

Only if the inquests verdict is unlawful killing

They don’t have to wait for the inquest to charge someone.

They don’t have to wait for the inquest to charge someone.

Probably true. But it's a little odd to try and pursue a murder charge against someone if there's been no murder. Unless we are going to go down the rabbit hole that a coroners court finds lawful killing, but the Crown court decides that it was unlawful.

(Although am I imagining that this has happened in the past ?)

The US gets it right on somethings, if this case was in the US he wouldn't even of been arrested.

That's not how it works here. The other burglar was going upstairs whilst the confrontation happened in the kitchen. He may only have had intent to carry out a burglary with an offensive weapon. There's no way a charge with attempted murder will stick.

@Lizzie48

What you say “If there had been a scuffle and the burglar had knocked his head against the table and got killed, self-defence would be much easier to establish” is wrong.

“Self-defence” is the defence against a possible murder charge, and that the action which caused the burglar to be stabbed was taken in defence of the accused’s life.

A murder charge would be about a premeditated attack with intent to kill. In the circumstances you describe there is no intent to kill- the death would’ve been accidental. The charge would therefore have been lesser- possibly manslaughter.

Either way - self-defence wouldn’t necessarily be any easier to prove if he’d wrestled the guy to the ground and he smashed his head or he took up a weapon and stabbed him. It’s still a case of whether the actions taken by the householder amounted to a reasonable and proportionate response to the perceived threat.

That's not how it works here. The other burglar was going upstairs whilst the confrontation happened in the kitchen. He may only have had intent to carry out a burglary with an offensive weapon. There's no way a charge with attempted murder will stick.

That's exactly how it works here - "Joint Enterprise" means that if two people go out to break the law, they are both bound by what happens ...

if (note the "if") the evidence is clear enough to demonstrate that the dead burglar was killed whilst attacking the householder, and that attack was adjudged to have been GBH then it becomes attempted murder. At which point chummy boy upstairs has to face that charge too.

The case of Derek Bentley is a terrible illustration of the consequences.

A murder charge would be about a premeditated attack with intent to kill

Premeditation isn't required.

it could still be self-defence. A threat need not be explicit - nor present - it's entirely how the person at the time perceived it

This isn’t actually true. If there was no actual threat but the householder genuinely thought there was, it could still be self-defence but this would only be accepted if a reasonable person would have likely made the same mistake & acted in the same way. So it’s not “entirely” down to his personal perception.

We saw exactly this with Pistorius. He said he was convinced the person in the toilet (Reeva) was a dangerous intruder so fired four times through the door. The supreme court decided that, even if he did genuinely believe that, a reasonable person would not have fired plus he had no acceptable justification for his belief in the intruder (he neither heard nor saw one).

None of us know the circumstances here but if the burglar was halfway out a window and got pulled back in and stabbed, that would be murder. If (as sounds more likely to me) there was a tussle and the burglar got stabbed during it, it would be close to impossible to support a charge of either murder or manslaughter.

What’s worrying about this thread the number of people who simply don’t understand that when you have a dead body with a stab wound in their chest the police MUST arrest the killer on suspicion of murder. There’s no way around that. People seem to be so proud of their own stunning ignorance, it’s terrifying.

Okay, I accept that I might have got that wrong. But I would have thought it would be easy to prove aggravated burglary, as they went to the house armed, but not so easy to prove that there was any intention to kill or cause serious injury.

My point about self-defence is that I remember being taught about self-defence as a student. You can use a key to defend yourself but if you’ve done anything to sharpen the key, or used another offensive weapon, then that’s disproportionate. But if the house holder managed to turn the screwdriver on his attacker, while he himself was being attacked. that would be self-defence.

But as they were in the kitchen, we don’t know whether he stabbed the intruder with a kitchen knife.

What’s worrying about this thread the number of people who simply don’t understand that when you have a dead body with a stab wound in their chest the police MUST arrest the killer on suspicion of murder. There’s no way around that. People seem to be so proud of their own stunning ignorance, it’s terrifying.

By the same token, at least they are here where they can't do any real harm, rather than patrolling the streets with a gun, handcuffs, and a copy of the "Perry Mason book for Boys 1958" ....

Burglars?
Intruders in your home, you have no idea how far they’d go or what they planned. He was downstairs, his disabled wife upstairs and one man heading up there. Last month, a man was convicted of raping and murdering a 72 year old woman in her own home. Her name was Jane Hings.
And the dead man’s relatives wailing about what a lovely man he was. Ronnie and Reggie loved their mum too. Didn’t stop them being violent criminals.

My point about self-defence is that I remember being taught about self-defence as a student.

I hope that came after "run away" ?

No, we were being advised on how to protect ourselves from an attacker, say if we were attacked whilst on the underground. You can’t arm yourself with a weapon in other words.

What I don’t want is what many other posters seem to want, which is for the police to say “That’s fine, it was obviously self defense, off you go. We’ll just clear up this body”.

If the CPS say there is no case to answer, then obviously fine.But it has to be properly investigated.

And yes, I do hope he is charged. That way a jury can decide whether or not he is guilty of anything. This is not something I want the police or public opinion to decide.

But don't the police and the CPS make decisions like that all the time? If there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime was committed, then there's no point in taking the case to court.

But don't the police and the CPS make decisions like that all the time? If there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime was committed, then there's no point in taking the case to court

Yes. The police gather the evidence & present it to the CPS who’ll decide whether to charge or not. This won’t be a decision the police will make unilaterally. The CPS will only agree to a charge if, on the evidence, there’s a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

It all hinges on the word 'reasonable' and the question of intent.

So, a fight in a kitchen between two people, A and B.

A has a screwdriver that can be used as a weapon. Was it intended to be used as a weapon (had it been sharpened)? Is it reasonable to break into somebody's home and then aggravate the break in by threatening the householder? Did A bring the screwdriver it to the kitchen from another location (intent)? What did A intend to achieve by brandishing the screwdriver at the householder? What did A intend to achieve by illegally entering the property?

B is in his own kitchen, being threatened with the screwdriver. Is it reasonable in that situation for B to be in fear of serious injury or death? Is it reasonable for a knife to be to hand in a kitchen? Is it reasonable for that knife to be picked up and used against A? Was B responding to a threat in a reasonable and proportionate way? Did B intend to end the life of A?

Do A and B have any prevous history of interaction?
Do A or B have any previous criminal convictions for incidents with similarities that could be looked at to gain insight into any pattern of offending?

That's what the CPS solicitor will consider in deciding what (if anything) to charge B with, as these will be the questions asked at trial to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This reminds me of the Padraig McNally case in Ireland. Shot a guy after he caught him and accomplice trying to steal. Conviction eventually overturned and the defence against the dwelling act introduced. Long and short of it is that a person can defend themselves within their home where they perceive there to be a reasonable threat (you can’t just lure them in and clump them). If it results in a fatality it will not necessarily be classed as a murder, whereas before the onus was on the individual whose home had been intruded to escape by any means necessary.

That’s why I dislike the term ‘murder’ being thrown about.