Cycling UK Forum

gnvqsos wrote:When I was on jury service one of the cases involved a claim of self defence. The judge explained that self defence involved reasonable and sufficient force to repel the attack and no more. Is killing someone reasonable force?


You easily kill someone using reasonable force,for exaple pushing someone who subsequently bangs their head on the floor.This did used to happen to many members of ethnic minorities being held in custody by the Met- a mixture of ethnis minority fragility and bad luck in the case of the police who were often more clumsy when confronting people of non Caucasian origin.

The law now recognises that in the heat of the moment people defending themselves in their homes cannot be expected to make fine judgements about the amount of force or correct weapon to use. So if you are backed into a corner in your own kitchen, stabbing them with a kitchen knife is reasonable. But chasing them down the street and stabbing them when they have fled is not self-defence. That is the sort of line that is drawn.

since the case is now closed we will never now know what happened?

I suspect some thing like this - the burglar who died forced the oap into/or to stay in the kitchen so that the other guy could have a look around for things to steal going upstairs, he did so brandishing the screw driver weapon. The oap refused as his handicapped wife was upstairs, so a scuffle ensued with both grappling with the screwdriver and the burglar got stabbed with it?

When I was on jury service one of the cases involved a claim of self defence. The judge explained that self defence involved reasonable and sufficient force to repel the attack and no more. Is killing someone reasonable force?


You easily kill someone using reasonable force,for exaple pushing someone who subsequently bangs their head on the floor.This did used to happen to many members of ethnic minorities being held in custody by the Met- a mixture of ethnis minority fragility and bad luck in the case of the police who were often more clumsy when confronting people of non Caucasian origin.

When discussing burglary stats, it's important to be clear what's in the data. As I've posted somewhere above, burglary used to be restricted to breaking in to a dwellinghouse in the night time, intending to commit a felony, or breaking out after committing one. Leeser offences were things like housebreaking (from the days when "house" meant a building, rather than a dwellinghouse.) That changed under the Theft Act 1968 to entering any building as a trespasser, with intent etc. Nipping round the counter in a shop to steal when nobody was looking was suddenly burglary, which tended to reduce the seriousness of crimes like the one which is the subject of this thread.

As a young PC, probably too clever by half, I had more than my fair share of being what we called a "clerk" especially on nights. The clerks were generally older-end PC's who worked shifts dealing with the public counter, answering phones, acting as gaoler and generally doing a lot of operational typing in between. That included typing-up newly reported crimes. I remember a very senior (in service) detective sergeant getting beside himself when he found me recording a theft of lead piping from an outside lavatory as burglary.

(This refers only to England and Wales. I believe that in Scotland the equivalent is or was "opening lockfast premises." OLP. irc's your man here.

Yes I was reading in the Telegraph that the police now dont respond to burglarys in person any more unless there likely to be some forensic evidence like cct that might lead to identification and conviction, but deal with it over the phone 2/3 of cases are not dealt with properly they says - 64% are never solved and in some areas 9 out of 10 are written off without any action. Last year 127,617 burglary investigations were closed without any suspect being identified, leaving the victim with no hope of justice.

One thing that's reminiscent of more recent media coverage of Hillsborough is that the BBC has published a gallery of pictures of the currently 52 people recently "killed in London." One difference is that almost half the names have a blank rather than a picture of the deceased. There is a picture of Henry Vincent who died as a result of this incident but AFAIK, it's a police photo, published when he was circulated as wanted in connection with another alleged burglary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43640475

In another BBC item

London violence: Met chief says police have control of streets

Ms Dick said she does not believe the recent spike in attacks is due to cuts to police budgets, adding that arrests have already been made in the five murder investigations that have been launched since Monday.
(My emphasis.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lo ... ting-story

Once upon a time, counting arrests was an American police thing, presumably as a result of a legal system so complex that once a case is handed over to the DA, anything might happen. In spite of some well-publicised cases of the books being rigged, AFAIK, the relevant measure in the E&W is if a suspect has been charged or a summons issued.

Anyway, my is interpretation is that the figures include the arrest on suspicion of murder of Mr Osborn-Brooks. Now, that case certainly seems to illustrate the thoroughness with which the Metropolitan Police Service investigates some matters and it's apparent that this investigation occupied a lot of time and effort. However, to portray the arrest of an elderly man confronted with two intruders in his own home during the night, especially when one of those men was apparently circulated as wanted by a neighbouring police force from whose area these men had driven unnoticed by the police, as any sort of a success in "the never-ending fight against crime" is clutching at straws. IMO

thirdcrank wrote:

... I suspect that when the media really get going with this we'll have some frantic activity in Downing Street. ...

I think that's played a big part here.

Not to mention how they can work the other way - for example police really used the media to push their lies about Hillsborough and Orgreave.

thirdcrank wrote:

... I suspect that when the media really get going with this we'll have some frantic activity in Downing Street. ...

I think that's played a big part here.

hope not

... I suspect that when the media really get going with this we'll have some frantic activity in Downing Street. ...

I think that's played a big part here.

Bonefishblues wrote:The gentleman has been released and no charges are planned.

I expect it was the Mail What Did It.

I think the papers (including the Mirror) made the decision come sooner.

The gentleman has been released and no charges are planned.

I expect it was the Mail What Did It.

Cunobelin wrote:As. I posted before, being arrested is essential in these cases as it places a formal structure around the case that defines how it is handled, investigated and dealt with.

It protects the "arrestee"

But as the police can now arrest anybody for just about any offence, we seem to be in a doubtful situation. I think the important point is that the apparent gravity of the alleged offence is not included in the list of reasons making the arrest lawful. (The list is in gaz's link.)

As I've also posted before, somebody in police detention is probably better protected than ever before, but the strongest protection is the right not to be arrested except under the authority of the law. ie Arrest on the authority of a warrant or by the proper exercise of a power of arrest.
=========================================================================
PS I see that the suspect has now been released from police bail (ie not required now to return to a police station in May as was originally announced) and he has been notified no action will be taken against him. Excellent that he's been cleared, and so quickly, but that doesn't alter my views on the necessity of his arrest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43676359

As. I posted before, being arrested is essential in these cases as it places a formal structure around the case that defines how it is handled, investigated and dealt with.

It protects the "arrestee"

Tangled Metal wrote:Can you really kill someone with a simple scuffle and a screwdriver? Wouldn't it need to be a very unlucky tussle that resulted in the burglars death by screwdriver and 78 year old man. If indeed the weapon was the screwdriver.

Absolutely possible

Every year there are cases where an apparently simple and minor scuffle ends in a death

gaz wrote:A barrister's explanation of the broad legal points: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/04/ ... f-defence/

Very interesting including the background material about the politicians' spin.

I think there's only one point of difference between what I've posted and the author of that which is on the question of whether this arrest was legally necessary. On their comments about the lack of importance attached by the police and CPS, I'm pleased to have included my info about how breaking into somebody's house at night was once considered suitable only for trial by a red judge at the Assizes, unless it wasn't too bad in which case a recorder and jury at the Quarter Sessions would suffice.

Incidentally, I don't think that hopefully informed comment on the activities of the police is in any way inappropriate in a free society. One of the things that was drummed - metaphorically - into me was that the police in England and Wales police by consent. IMO, That requires that the police should enjoy public confidence, which is fostered by open discussion. I'm not talking here about the leaking of confidential information and I try to be totally scrupulous in that respect myself. Although I post frequently and often at some length it's a combination of links to published sorces or reference to things which were in the public arena eg cases heard in open court. My memory lane anecdotes relate to events from decades ago.