Homeowners have a right to take tough action or use “disproportionate force” if faced with an intruder in their home, the High Court has ruled.
The so-called “householder defence”, as strengthened by the Coalition Government, has been declared not incompatible with European human rights laws.
However, senior judges have stressed that the ruling does not give homeowners a “carte blanche” to use any degree of force without repercussion and said that they must believe that the level of force they are using is necessary under the circumstances.
The judges rejected a case brought by the family of an alleged intruder who was left in a coma after entering a man’s home and being confronted by its owner.
The homeowner put Denby Collins in a headlock to restrain him.
Collins’ family had taken a case against the homeowner, arguing that their son’s human rights had been breached under Article 2 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to respect for life.
However, the judges have rejected the case on the grounds that the homeowner’s actions were permissible under the so-called ‘householder defence’ introduced by Parliament when the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was used to insert a new Section 76(5A) into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
President of the Queen’s Bench Division Sir Brian Leveson said: “In the circumstances I conclude that the criminal law of England and Wales on self defence in householder cases, taken as a whole, fulfils the framework obligation under Article 2(1).
“The headline message is and remains clear: a householder will only be able to avail himself of the defence if the degree of force he used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice welcomed the judgment: “Being confronted by an intruder in your own home can be a terrifying ordeal.
“That is why the last Government strengthened the law to give householders greater protection to defend themselves from intruders.
“We welcome this judgment, which confirms that the provisions under the Crime & Courts Act 2013 are compatible with our obligations under human rights legislation.”
Collins’ family said that they are disappointed with the decision and are considering an appeal.
With additional reporting by Press Association
