Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

No, like the right hon. Gentleman, I have the highest regard for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I presume that this evening he is exercising his own right to self-defence by not being here. He has withdrawn from the Chamber and the possibility of being dealt a few blows that could actually hurt him. I say that not in a rude or pejorative fashion but in a semi-jocular way. Yesterday, I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the very question I also asked the Minister: what would be the exact difference in the law after this measure was introduced? Answer came there none from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, except, ““Hang on until tomorrow and all will be revealed.”” In the past few minutes, the Minister has revealed all and, blow me, I am underwhelmed! I listened intently but reason or logic came there none and changes less still, so I am still none the wiser. ““Could it be,”” I ask myself, ““that the Government are speaking to an audience outside the Chamber?”” Surely not; surely, they are not actually addressing an audience outside the Chamber such as the tabloid groups. No, never, that could not be right—I have dismissed that idea. Currently, a householder may use reasonable force to defend him or herself or another, or in the prevention of crime, which includes defending a person's property. The new clause therefore does nothing. The use of force in self-defence is governed by common law and the use of force in the prevention of crime is governed by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. In both cases, the test to be applied is whether the force used was necessary and, if so, whether the degree of force used was reasonable in all the circumstances. Whether the force used can be considered reasonable is decided according to the circumstances and the danger that the householder perceived him or herself to be in. The beauty of that law is the fact that it is so open, because circumstances change and one looks at the circumstances of each case. We have heard about someone having his ear sliced off and I can tell hon. Members about a case I defended in which, in a public house in north Wales, two families who were not very friendly met up. One was a family of poachers and the other of gamekeepers. Three members of one family jumped on top of one member of the other family in the toilets and the only way in which the lad, who was by himself, felt he could defend himself was by squeezing one of the others' testicles in the most awful way. It left some permanent damage by the way, so it was not altogether a laughing matter—certainly not for the man involved. Anyway, the question for the court was whether the force used there and then was reasonable in all the circumstances and the court said, yes. So every case is decided on its merits; that is the beauty of the law of self-defence. I deduce therefore that the only possible justification for the change is to provide some form of clarification and/or, possibly, that somebody is addressing somebody outside. Section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 clarifies the operation of the common law and section 3 defences as listed in the 1967 Act. The 2003 Act did not change the current test that allows the use of reasonable force and neither, I suspect, will new clause 27. Nor, indeed, can the Government argue that the law surrounding reasonable force is badly understood by the judiciary—professional or lay. The existing position with regard to property is set out clearly in layman's terms in the CPS guidance ““Self-defence and the prevention of crime””. It says:"““Reasonable force. A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property; or prevention of crime; or lawful arrest.""In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:""was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and""was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?””" The existing law works well and is well understood; 99% of the time it is well applied in courts and I do not know of any great tide of concern that the law needs further clarification.