|
Edwin Pitkin was told today (25th April 2008) that he would not have to face court over the fatal stabbing of 32-year-old Mark Woods whom he believed to be a burglar breaking into his house. Mark Woods, in a confused state after a 12 hour drink and drugs binge, believed that Mr. Pitkin was trying to stop him entering his own home. Mr. Pitkin, believing Mark Woods to be a burglar, armed himself with a kitchen knife and went downstairs. Mark Woods died as a result of a scuffle breaking out as he continued to try to enter what he believed to be his own home.
The Crown Prosecution Service announced that Mr. Pitkin would not be charged with the murder of Mark Woods because there was no proof he had acted unlawfully. The CPS further added that householders were entitled to use "reasonable force" in self-defence when facing an intruder. Rene Barclay, the CPS's director of complex casework, said:
"A person is entitled to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of self-defence, the defence of another, the defence of property, or the prevention of crime."
Rene Barclay also stated:
"We have to take account of the circumstances as Mr Pitkin believed them to be. We therefore concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction in this case because there was insufficient evidence to establish Mark Woods was unlawfully killed."
The background to the incident that resulted in Mark Woods being lawfully killed by Mr. Pitkin is as follows:
On the night of 29 February, Mr. Pitkin was woken in bed by the sound of Mark Woods trying to force his way through the front door.
Mark Woods, a forklift driver, had been on a 12-hour drink and drugs session to celebrate his coming 33rd birthday.
Mr. Pitkin, the householder, armed himself with a kitchen knife and, while his wife rang 999, went downstairs. A scuffle broke out as Mark Woods continued to try to enter - believing he was being stopped from getting into his own home.
Mr. Pitkin told police Mark Woods had threatened to stab him in the eyes using a bunch of keys held between the fingers of his clenched fist, and that he responded by stabbing his assailant. The wound pierced Mr. Woods's heart.
The keys were later found in the dead man's clenched hand. Mr. Pitkin, who was described by neighbours as "quiet and friendly", was arrested and questioned.
The CPS said Mr. Pitkin's account - and the absence of any forensic or other evidence to contradict it - indicated he had been in genuine fear and had therefore, not acted unlawfully.
Under existing law, householders and others have the right to act in self-defence provided they use force that is "reasonable in the circumstances" to repel the threat they are facing.
Among the crucial factors prosecutors use to judge "reasonable force" is the level of danger a person honestly believes themselves to be facing - even if in reality the threat is less than feared - and whether the risk could have been repelled in any other way.
Controversy over homeowners' rights to self-defence has raged since the case of farmer Tony Martin who was jailed for shooting dead 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras in 1999.
However, the Crown Prosecution Service has repeatedly emphasised that people can use reasonable force to repel intruders and this year decided not to bring charges against Lancashire shopkeeper Tony Singh after he stabbed to death a man who was trying to rob him in February. Liam Kilroe, who was attempting to rob Mr. Singh, was stabbed with his own knife during a struggle in which Mr. Singh was also stabbed several times in defending himself against the assault by Liam Kilroe.
The CPS said that in making its decision it was "determined" to ensure that those who used reasonable force to defend themselves were given the "full protection of the law".
The right to use "reasonable force" in defence of ourselves, others and in protection of our property, is a basic fundamental human and civil right enshrined in our Common and Criminal Law, and the findings and comments of the CPS are encouraging in the above cases as they obviously illustrate their support and recognition of this right. This fundamental basic right does not have environmental, geographical or demographic boundaries in the UK. In other words, this right exists whether we are at work, at a social function, or in the privacy of our own home.
Isn't it interesting therefore, that some agencies still advocate that at work staff should only use "minimum force" - not "reasonable force" - but a possibly inferred 'lesser degree of force', which may well infer to staff that they are only entitled to do less than what is reasonable in the circumstances.
Everyone in the UK has the legal right to use force that is reasonable in the circumstances. No one can take that right away.
In addition we all have what is called 'individual autonomy' (something we wrote about in a previous article entitled 'What is Common Law?') to decide in the light of the circumstances what we honestly believe to be reasonable, based on the level of threat that we honestly believe we are facing, even if that believe is a mistaken one, as this recent case clearly highlights.
Our Restraint & Breakaway Instructors Qualifying Course incorporate instruction in various aspects of Common Law, Criminal Law, Human Rights and Children's Legislation in an easily understandable way and the feedback we have had over the last four years supports and endorses this fact. To see feedback taken from our ISO9001: 2000 Quality Management System - click here
Other Related Articles:
What is Common Law? - Read more
How far can we actually go when using physical force? - Read more
Minimum Force - Myth or Reality? - Read more |
