Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

The purpose of the phrase"““ought to have been apparent to the person using such force””," which is used in new clauses 8 and 9, is to make it clear that we believe that there needs to be an objective test. The matter cannot be left to a test that is entirely subjective. No one who has taken part in the House's deliberations on these matters has suggested that the law should have protected Tony Martin from the consequences of the action that he took. Our new clauses would not do that either, but the Government appear to believe that putting into statute a codification of existing case law will somehow assist people faced with a threat in their homes. Whether such a codification would be of any use to people in the heat of the moment is open to question. The present Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills was asked about that in March 2003, and he said:"““Some sort of codification of what level of force is permissible is likely to be of only academic interest to people who suddenly find themselves under attack. Such a code is not likely to be the sort of thing one carries around in one's mind in case it is needed.””—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 211WH.]" That underlines the point that no codification is needed. We have had guidance from the Home Office, but no sort of codification will help people suddenly faced with an attack in their home.