Government laws versus the laws of nature

Fluffy TV presenter, M&S icon and motherly role model Myleene Klass, may not seem a likely candidate to wield a kitchen knife, but when faced with intruders in the garden of her home, that’s exactly what she did.

The judge said: “If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”

She waved the knife at suspicious intruders in her garden whilst banging on the window to ward them off, whilst her baby daughter slept upstairs. Normal, instinctive, parental behaviour, many concurred.

However, Myleene’s actions received a telling off from Hertfordshire Police who said that carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal. Bemused, Klass responded, saying: “It was a scary incident but I've got no regrets as to how I reacted. I think I did what any other mother would do. This is my house and that's my daughter up there and I will do anything to protect my daughter and my family. That's what I did."

So what should she have done? According to the Crown Prosecution Service, ‘wherever possible you should call the police'. Anything you do to the intruders whilst waiting for the police is on your own head, but the courts do acknowledge the plea of self defence stating that ‘as a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence'. In other words, you are permitted to use reasonable force in defence of yourself or your family.

But self-defence doesn’t always wash with the courts and although rare, there are incidences every year of homeowners facing prosecution for fighting off and/or injuring or even killing intruders. Last December, Munir Hussain, a business man in Buckinghamshire, was jailed for 30 months after fighting off intruders who came into his home with knives.

Hussain, 53, was told that he would be killed and his family’s hands were tied behind their backs as the intruders beat him. He managed to escape and chased the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground. He then struck him with a cricket bat, causing permanent brain injury. Reading Crown Court described his actions as ‘self-defence that went too far’ before jailing him.

The judge said: “If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”

The story does evoke sympathy with a man who clearly hadn’t asked to be intruded upon and who wanted to protect his family. It is widely argued that those who deliberately break the law do not then deserve the protection of the law and that in this case the offender should accept the consequences of Mr Hussain’s instinctive reaction. However, the case also raises the issue of whether or not by taking the law into our own hands, we are in fact no better than the criminals themselves?

Many people claim to have lost faith in the British justice system, but placing ourselves as judge, jury and executioner isn’t necessarily the answer either. Our laws serve the purpose of working against what would otherwise be a Wild West society. The Law good or bad is the Law.

But should it allow more leniency toward victims? Anti-crime campaigners argue that the police need to get their priorities straight and concentrate on protecting victims rather than appeasing them for natural human reactions. Conservative leader, David Cameron has also spoken out against the police reaction to the Myleene Klass incident saying: “Sometimes the police do seem to do things that slightly fly in the face of common sense. One of the things that has gone wrong with all this red tape and form filling is that we are taking away discretion from the nurse, the teacher, the doctor, the police officer. We have got to give them back that discretion.”

We’re told to seek justice, not vengeance, although that’s not enough to stop Myleene reaching from the nearest knife, nor protective fathers from keeping a baseball bat at the bedside. After all, to them it’s better to be in prison for defending yourself and your family than in the morgue for trying not to break the law. So should the law offer us better protection against intruders to help solve such moral dilemmas?