Let me get this straight: when Tony Martin pled self-defense for shooting a burglar on his premises, he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 5 years in jail.

But when a criminal pleads self-defense after being "assaulted" by a cop, that's a legitimate plea?

Britain is going insane.

Susan

A very intersting contast in treatment! The truth is that Britain has completely and uttrerly lost the plot

We need to be able to vote for judges. More importantly, we need to be able to vote them *out*.

Let us not forget that this government has created the climate where these absurd judgements are able to flourish. I hope the law abiding, tax paying public are taking note and will cast their vote wisely at the next election. (reported today as possibly 5-5-04).

Sorry I meant 5-5 05.

Hi.

I think Susan is smack on the mark in her comparison.

Also, if you want to create a state of affairs where police officers enforce an unwritten law and don't bother telling judges about it, this is the way to go.

My Sympathy-Meter appears to be stuck on zero.

If I, or Melanie or any of the other commenters here, were to lay so much as a finger on that burglar then PC Scott and his chums would gleefully march us off to jail, chundering self-righteously about 'not taking the law into your own hands'.

Then they would most likely compound the offence by offering the burglar 'victim counselling'.

Let them be hoist by their own petards, I say.

No, David, we must be appalled equally by both actions. The police and public must be allowed to use the "force-plus-one" equation when dealing with criminals without fearing prosecution.

This ruling is insane.

(my last post was in reply to David Carr's post, not David Blue's.)

Mr Carr is way off the mark - sadly typical of anyone who has had a speding ticket etc and now hates the police - the comment about police officers being self righteous gives it all away. Why were they in the loft in the first place - searching it for a worried householder. PS - and a few corrections - the police do not march anyone off to jail - someone is custodised for a few hours after arrest - it is the court that decides if someone is guilty-so blame the jury not the police if you don't like the verdict. Equally in 9 years service, I never saw any officer got involved in arranging counselling for an offender - even if he claimed to be a victim of assault by the true victim - so that bit is pure fantasy. As to his last remark - presumably he feels the same way about all assaults (even deadly ones) on police officers - what a charming person

Melanie,

Very good points. I expect you saw the article in yesterday's Sunday Times review by American sociologist Charles Murray about justice in Britain? In it he devised a questionnaire that shows whether respondents are 'progressive' (ie soft on crime) or 'cops' (ie tough on crime). Not surprisingly, members of the judiciary, law reformers etc who answered the questionnaire nearly always scored as progressives..and, as the justice system is largely in their hands, it is unsurprising that the sentences they pass are seen by the general public as 'soft'.

Please focus on this issue yourself in a future article. The issue of law and order is one where the dispensers of justice really are, in my view, completely out of touch with the majority of British citizens

David: "Not surprisingly, members of the judiciary, law reformers etc who answered the questionnaire nearly always scored as progressives..and, as the justice system is largely in their hands, it is unsurprising that the sentences they pass are seen by the general public as 'soft'."

Hhmmm . . . and we are the people who have daily experience of it and are duly much more knowledgeable about it.

Interestingly enough, a different study showed that the general public, when provided with examples of criminality, consistently underestimate the likely sentence a Defendant would receive on conviction.

Well I think that "cops" could also be said to have daily experience of the system too - as they are the main body putting people before the courts - and obviously see both the crime, the victim and the true demeanour of the offender - all hidden from a court where much of the emphasis is on finding technical faults in the police procedure - "you put the wrong date in your notebook and then changed it -- how many other mistakes have you made, officer?" and accusing the officers of fitting up their client - even if he is caught red handed on audio and video!

Stuart,

That's a rather old-fashioned, stereotypical, ill-considered view of what lawyers do in court (and did you even think to consider whether I defend or prosecute criminals before you made that comment?)

To correct you as well - calling people "cops" did not mean they were literally policemen. It meant they take a much more punishment-based view to the criminal justice system. And how do you know they deal with it day in, day out? We do not know how many of these people had been victims of crime.

Whereas myself, as a prosecuting lawyer - a victim of crime three times in one year. And I'm still a "progressive" (NOT soft on crime). Speaks volumes about what a little knowledge of the justice system does for people.

Or maybe I'm just not a knee-jerk reactionary.

I am sorry if you think my views old fashioned, stereotypical and ill- considered - the constant scrutiny of procedure and attempts to exclude evidence would be very much the experience of most officers at court I would suggest. I would be very much at the very liberal end of the many police officers I have met in terms of my views on the way the legal system works - the commonest/majority view (or canteen culture view if you will )considers lawyers as worse than the criminals they represent (not my view as I have friends who are solictors). Of course you might say that these are ignorant oafs - but I have never met one officer on operational duty with a good word to say for lawyers - prejudice shaped by experience perhaps? I know that the "cops" reference did not literally mean police officers - but obviously the use of the term is meant to imply that that is how police officers think - and I think that the police are just as much a part of the justice system as any other group and as such constitute "people who have daily experience of it and are duly much more knowledgeable about it."