can anyone help me to understand this please

[Jimmychasesducks]

here

I don't get it, I know the family had a terrible expierence but

"He suffered a permanent brain injury after being chased down the street by a group of men in September 2008 and struck with a cricket bat so hard that it broke into three pieces."

so the man was gone, yet they chased him.
so how could this be them protecting themselves
(really don't get it)

I don't understand how he's committed other crimes since, with serious brain injury (unless I misheard on the news earlier).

Hmm.I had an intruder in my house when I was a student.

The bugger actually came into my bedroom and rifled through my jeans pockets in my bedroom.I was SOO scared I pretended to be asleep and he went.

It could have been much worse.

I think if some bugger breaks into your house and threatens your livelehood you are entitled to take some kind of action,though hopefully brain damage to the perpetrator isn't the usual outcome.

Also if someone in balaclavas had tied me and DD up and threatened to kill us - I really don't think I would think badly of my DH if he ran after the bloke with a cricket bat.

But surely injury and death are an occupational hazard if you violently rob people in their houses?

I'm not saying I think badly or judge them iynwim
but if the person has left the house and you chase them is it still self defence(I suppose that is the bit I am stuck on)

Munir Hussain went too far but we can all understand why.

I think the law needs to be changed. It gives too much protection to burglars and not enough to their victims.

"Reasonable force" is too wishy-washy. It should be OK to have a go in any way whatsoever unless the force you use is ridiculously disproportionate.

Also, I don't understand why the law makes a distinction between what happens in your house when burgled, and what happens as you are chasing them away.

I'm probably not strong or brave enough to tackle a burglar, but if you are, I don't see why the law should let them get away.

I would equalize the mitigation in law between what happens at the scene, and what happens in the immediate aftermath.

Where I draw the line is vigilante justice - in other words, planned retribution well after the attack has occured.

"Where I draw the line is vigilante justice - in other words, planned retribution well after the attack has occured."

Then you can claim PTS.

I'm glad they set him free, he shouldn't have been locked up in the first place.

I have to say that he above incident really terrified me.

I think he thought the house was unoccupied and was pretty suprised to find anyone in.

If i had been less sleepy and less pathetically girly I would have got up and chased the F$$$$$$.As it was my {male} housemates had buggered off to a party the night before and left the living room window open to get rid of the smell of their dope .

It really did scare me and who knows what you wouklddo if someone REALLY threatened your loved ones.

The burglar was scum and deserved what he got (he obviously carried out a risk analysis before entering the premises). Justice has been
served.

Mavis - I remember years ago I'd moved into a flat on my own and on the first night someone was mooching around outside. I crawled in the dark on my hands and knees to get a kitchen knife and kept it under my pillow. Couldn't believe whoever it was couldn't hear my heartbeat. Later found out previous tenant was wanted locally for various dodgy loans, misdemeanours etc...

I think there are two issues with the High Wycombe case. The family had been subjected to previous attacks/threats and on the day in question arrived home to find intruders in their home who tied them up and threatened them. After dad escaped he chased intruders down the road. I think the court found that the history of attacks 'explained' the severity of the father's attack on the intruder. That is, it wasn't necessarily an ordinary response to a burglary, but this wasn't an ordinary burglary and the history of attacks/threats on the family was not 'normal'.

I didn't realise the poor family had been threatened and tied up,makes my story a walk in the park.

In this case the actual sentencing of the bloke sounds like a miscarraige of justice.

If you can't take the heat ,get out of the kitchen and all that,imo.

his term wasn't reduced because it was self defence, but because it was said he acted under "extreme provocation". I guess having someone burgle, attack & tie up your family may make you see red & chase them down the street!
I think the judge has seen sense & reduced the sentence.

The burglar however, was not jailed & ahs gone on to re offend. No justice there.

They had a bit of a debate on this on Today a few weeks ago. I think the general consensus then was that perpetrators of this sort of crime (not Mr Hussain but the guy who broke in) have far too many rights and that the law is skewed in their favour in this sort of case.

I think we have the right outcome here, for this particular case. I have llittle sympathy for the burglar.

If someone came into your house and terrified your family like that then I don't think you would be stopping to consider where the "boundaries" were if you got the opportunity to chase them away? Really I can understand how Mr Hussain took it this step too far and lets face it, the burglars would have been more than willing to attack the family further for the sake of getting more. And the burglar would have had time to plan his action opposed to someone who has just had the sh*t scared out of them.

The thing with this case is, you ask anyone what they would do in the same situation and they would probably say that they would do the same, i.e. chase the guy down and beat the shit out of him. I know I would.
Also, people will mostly say the burglar got what was coming to him. I personally think it's one less fucking feral scumbag roaming the streets

However, this is not how the justice system in this country works, and it shouldn't. An eye for an eye is a pretty sucky way to govern a country. Especially when that eye is poked out - not by the officials in charge - but by the victims, of their own volition, before any judgement can be passed.
I will agree that Mr Hussain acted under extreme provocation, but he should still be held accountable. There is no room in a civilised society for vigilantes.
Letting Mr Hussain off scot free validates the idea that the terrible ordeal he went through with his family is punishment enough, but really they need to be viewed as two separate incidents. Were the burglar in any position to be punished by the law, he would have been. They wouldn't have said: "Oh well, you had your head smashed in, that's punishment enough." There would have been outrage.

I think the Lord Chief Justice made the correct decision to suspend his sentence, which in reality is only a punishment if he commits another crime. It's just a nod to the fact that, when all is said and done, Mr Hussain did commit a crime, and he cannot be allowed to get away with it. Not because he particularly needs to be taught any lesson, but because our society cannot function without these rules. They are there for a reason, and allowing one person to break the rules opens the flood gates for them to be broken by many.

The original sentence was a result of what happens when governments allow public outrage to affect laws.

Because of a rash of stories in nearly all papers where criminals were deemed to be 'getting away with it' with suspended sentences the govt panicked and Jack Straw made a change in sentencing guidelines.

From that point judges had no discretion and anyone given over 12 months had to spend that time in custody.

Hoorah - no more soft judges and criminals get their just deserts at last.

Then this case comes along. The Hussains were found guilty because the jury had no other option - the brothers clearly were guilty.

Because they used weapons and beat the burglar when he was running away and posing no threat the trial judge was obliged to impose a custodial sentence of over 12 months - 33 and 39 months I think - to reflect the seriousness of the offence.

That's in the guidelines too and it should be.

The judge might have wanted to suspend a portion of it given the circumstances but he couldn't because his hands were tied by the guideline on suspended sentences.

Those are the rules and that's what happened but no newspaper was interested in explaining it because they and their readers were the ones who called for this change in sentencing which actually turned out to be a really stupid idea when a 'good' person got caught up in it.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Hussains and I'm glad their sentences were suspended by the superior court. I don't think they're a threat and if they are they'll go back to jail.

I don't think the law needs changing (though I expect that guideline will be quietly dropped) and I don't believe it's hard to understand or skewed towards burglars.

You are allowed to use reasonable force to repel a threat. The outcome makes no difference. You could kill somebody who was an immediate threat and quite possibly face no charges if the CPS decided what you did was reasonable under the circumstances.

Public outrage makes for bad law. We've seen it many times.

If I put myself in their position I can understand how and why this happened. Afterall just cause he was running away doesn't mean he wasn't going to come back. Who knows with what weapons and with how many other people.

Brain damage can effect you in lots of different ways but hasn't stopped him from commiting anymore crimes, who knows this could even be part of his brain damage.

I just can't help but think that if you break into someones house you are doing so knowing that there is a risk that there might be people inside and they might catch you. Surely this would cross your mind if you choose to do this?

good post tallulahbelly

I think the most important thing is that he retains his conviction for gbh as it shows the courts are acknowledging that he went too far and committed a criminal act but also recognises that he is not a danger to his community.

"I think the law needs to be changed. It gives too much protection to burglars and not enough to their victims.

"Reasonable force" is too wishy-washy. It should be OK to have a go in any way whatsoever unless the force you use is ridiculously disproportionate."

Where is the evidence for this?apart from a few hysterical editorials and public comments their is nothing to back up the notion that somehow criminals are more protected and you're not allowed to defend yourself. the law is actually slanted in the favour of the defendant in such instances as the test for self-defence is a subjective one in the favour of the defendant.
And anyway in this case I'd imagine by any reasonable standards the brothers met your criteria for ridiculously disproportionate in that they beat a man who was unarmed and fleeing the scene over the head while he was on the ground with a cricket bat,a hockey stick and a metal bar until he suffered brain damage.

"Also, I don't understand why the law makes a distinction between what happens in your house when burgled, and what happens as you are chasing them away."

They don't, they make absolutely no distinction. They make the distinction between acts of force which are intended to protect yourself,someone else or your property from immediate danger and those that are done out of anger and retribution. And I'm yet to see any convincing argument that a group of men beating a subdued man over the head with a hockey stick,a cricket bat and a metal pole while he was trying to run away as protecting themselves from any immediate danger. That is the difference,the burglar no longer posed any sort of a threat to the man,his family or his property and as such the levels of violence used where disproportionate to those that were needed to protect himself or his family because if he had done nothing at this point the burglar would have run away and his family would have been in no danger.