Well, that didn’t last too long. Hot on the heels of yesterday’s moderately good news comes today’s customary bad news.
Again, I was sort of expecting this to happen and now that it has happened it proves that my ‘Glumness Meter’ is actually quite reliable:
Burglar Brendon Fearon who was shot and injured by Tony Martin has won the right to sue the jailed farmer for damages.
A judge at Nottingham County Court on Friday overturned an earlier decision which threw out his claim.
Fearon, 33, hopes to sue Martin for a reported £15,000 following his wounding during a break-in at the farmer’s home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.
Which goes to prove I suppose that you just can’t keep a bad man down and that the word ‘absurd’ is fast becoming redundant in this corner of the world.
An earlier hearing was told that Fearon, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, claimed that his injuries, which included a leg wound, had affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts.
Which he doubtless enjoys best when practised simultaneously. Still, I’d best temper my comments regarding Mr.Fearon lest he ‘win the right’ to come after us with a defamation suit.
“I have to take the view that there are important issues here that need to be determined and that it would be wrong, subject to other considerations, to deprive the claimant from airing his claim and having a full trial,” said District Judge Oliver.
He said that to deny Fearon the right to his claim could contravene the burglar’s rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Convention.
I must be honest, when I first heard the term ‘burglar’s rights’ being bandied about I thought it must be some kind of blogosphere joke or a bit of British tabloid ribbing. Turns out they actually mean it. I should have known better than to assume that parody could actually be a match for reality these days.
I suppose some clarification of this decision is required. Please note that Fearon has won the ‘right’ to sue Mr.Martin. That does necessarily mean that his claim will succeed. However, as regards that latter prospect, my ‘Glumness Meter’ is already twitching ominously up in the high eighties.
the comment that makes me gawp with amazement is that the burglar is suing because his injuries made it difficult for him to engage in martial arts.
Has the world gone totally, utterly, nuts?
So, somebody was unlawfully injured and wants compensation. I don’t see why this is so shocking. Nor do I see what is especially “nuts” about suing for compensation because of an inability to enjoy his chosen sport.
Johnathan, In answer to your question, I don’t know about the world, but certainly Britain is adrift from its moorings. The Telegraph reported this item today, with the headline “Martin victim repeats damages claim”. Brendon Fearon, with over 30 previous convictions, is a perpetrator, not a victim and it is irritating to see The Telegraph employing either sloppy or lazy or politically correct headline writers. A more realistic headline would have been: Convicted felon Fearon continues to victimise Martin.
As I read the judge’s comments, he’s saying that it is important that the case is heard in order to establish what the law is, who has which rights, the extent to which the burglar can be deemed to be the author of his own misfortune, etc etc. Since it may well yet be that the ensuing case will be decided entirely to your satisfaction, isn’t your outrage a bit premature. And if the case is decided in a way you don’t like, at least we’ll know where we are and we can try to get legislation to change things.
Chris,
I refer you to the final paragraph of my post.
If Fearon wins his claim on the basis that his ‘Human Rights’ were breached (and are you willing to wager your next mortgage payment against that?) then that decision cannot be subsequently overturned by legislation.
Jason above asks why it is so shocking that a person who was unlawfully injured should seek compensation. The reason for shock is the notion that an admitted burglar who had entered a person’s property could subsequently claim unlawful injury because the owner of said property had sought to prevent said entry.
Fairly obvious, I’d have thought.
Like I said, the situation is crazy.
Now how does a convicted burglar find the money to fund a complicated civil claim like this, I wonder?
Answers on a postcard please ….
Cydonia
Guess I should have read the report. Turns out he’s on legal aid.
So you and I, dear taxpayers, are funding Mr. Fearon.
Does anybody disagree that THAT is indeed outrageous?
Cydonia
I wonder if Jason has thought about the consequences of Fearon’s claim succeeding?
I’m no lawyer, but isn’t it written somewhere that in Britain a criminal cannot benefit from his or her crime? Obviously they have to be caught for this to be enforced!
If not murderers could do in the rich uncle and still be entitled to their inheritence. There is I think some sort of precent for this.
I think the lawyers are happy to let this run and run. Not because there is a real legal issue at stake (although there are some interesting points without precedent) but because of the income it will generate for them. Whoever eventually wins this slightly absurd case the lawyers will be much better off. And they may even get to the bottom of when one can and can’t shoot an intruder. And there are definately strong arguments both ways to be resolved into a sensible conclusion.
On the more practical side the case will be tried by jury. There is a reasonable chance that the jury will die laughing at the gaul of the burgular to have the front to bring the case. Especially if we can get a few Samizdatae on the panel….
Years ago I was an American fan of the British comedies “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister.” Brits might be surprised (or not) to learn that the absurdities presented in these series had their echos in the United States.
Now I’m wondering if the people responsible for these series have in fact taken over the UK and are using it as a stage. “All the world’s a stage” you know. It certainly makes a kind of sense.
Johnathan; I don’t think people deserve to be shot at for burglary, no. But can you clarify why in particular it’s “nuts” that one of the claims is that he can’t enjoy martial arts, his chosen sport?
David; I would hope that the consequence is
that people don’t take potshots at people who
aren’t threatening their person.
This case seems shocking, but it is not so unusual, though the circumstances of self-defense are particularly egregious.
Locally, (Wilmington, Delaware), I recall a recent case where a burglar sued the owner of property he planned to rob, for negligence; he claimed that the roof was inadequately maintained, and that as a result he fell through, injuring himself. His fall, coincidentally, interrupted his burglary attempt.
I believe he lost, on “assumption of risk” theory. The owner was fined, and required to bring the roof ‘to code’.
“Especially if we can get a few Samizdatae on the panel….”
Is it Samizdatae or Samizdatisti or Samizdatista or maybe even Samizdatistae?
I think we should be told.
Cydonia
Jason: let’s just say there are things that worry me more than whether career criminals find it easy to breed or engage in hand-to-hand combat.
mad dog barker:
There are no juries for personal injury claims in England, so sadly your plan won’t work.
Cydonia
David,
Quite right to draw my attention to your final para. BUT I think that the way the HRA comes into the case is in relation to Fearon’s right to have a hearing (it is a right in relation to the state/legal system) and NOT in relation to the issue of whether burglars have a right of compensation against householders who injure them. If I’m right about this then my legislation point stands.
Jason your last post assumes a great deal. First it assumes that Mr. Martin knew the intentions of the perps. Second it assumes that Mr. Martin had a great deal of time to mull over his options during a break-in of his home. And third it assumes this douche bag, Fearon, is telling the truth. Logically, and there seems to be no logic in these laws, if Mr. Fearon had been behaving in a legal manner then he would not have been shot, hence he is ultimately responsible for his own injuries.
Here in the states if anyone dies during the commission of a crime then any of the surviving preps are charged with murder not the victim defending his life, family, others, or property.
The lesson in all of this: Don’t wound, kill the perp. Everyone will come out better. Mr. Martin would be better off because only his side of the story gets told. The citizens are better off because there is one less dirtbag to prey on them. Britain is better off because the taxpayers are no longer having to pay court costs, lawyers’ fees, and room and board for this loser, and as far as Mr. Fearon is concerned and his lawyer, tough shit.
Chris,
As I read the judge’s comments, he’s saying that it is important that the case is heard in order to establish what the law is, who has which rights, the extent to which the burglar can be deemed to be the author of his own misfortune, etc etc. Since it may well yet be that the ensuing case will be decided entirely to your satisfaction, isn’t your outrage a bit premature. And if the case is decided in a way you don’t like, at least we’ll know where we are and we can try to get legislation to change things.
Re: who has which rights. It is clear who has which rights. There was an act of aggression which took place, which was responded to by an act of self-defense.
The person who acts in self-defense has a right to his life, just as all people do. He is justified in using force to defend it.
The fact that the judge agreed to hear the case is pretty daming evidence that he is incapable of making the distinction between aggressor and victim.
“David; I would hope that the consequence is
that people don’t take potshots at people who
aren’t threatening their person.”
Er, no. That is already the position in case you had not noticed and is enforced regardless of whether the burglar poses a threat or not.
If Fearon wins his claim then any householder tackling an intruder in future will face the threat of both criminal charges and a ruinous civil claim. It will prove less costly to simply let the burglar have whatever he wants and hope to God that he has no designs on you.
Jason, does this mean that if a guy bursts into your house in the middle of the night, that it is not okay for you to do ANYTHING to stop him, even if he continues to drag stuff from your home when you have insisted he stop?
I am sorry, but you are living in a fantasy world. We have gotten to the point where householders, to all intents and purposes, have no right to defend themselves or their property.
Be in no doubt, if I had a gun and burglar came into my house, I’d nail the bastard.
Right, I’ll calm down now and go back to work.
David that last post of yours reminded me eerily of the Democrats tax policy here in the states, strange.
D2D,
The lesson in all of this: Don’t wound, kill the perp. Everyone will come out better. Mr. Martin would be better off because only his side of the story gets told. The citizens are better off because there is one less dirtbag to prey on them. Britain is better off because the taxpayers are no longer having to pay court costs, lawyers’ fees, and room and board for this loser, and as far as Mr. Fearon is concerned and his lawyer, tough shit.
Excellent point – the unintended consequences of the state’s trying to protect burglars is going to have the opposite effect.
D2D,
The lesson in all of this: Don’t wound, kill the perp. Everyone will come out better. Mr. Martin would be better off because only his side of the story gets told. The citizens are better off because there is one less dirtbag to prey on them. Britain is better off because the taxpayers are no longer having to pay court costs, lawyers’ fees, and room and board for this loser, and as far as Mr. Fearon is concerned and his lawyer, tough shit.
Excellent point – the unintended consequences of the state’s trying to protect burglars is going to have the opposite effect.
Generally speaking, I find it odd that some wish to place on the wronged party the burden of determining whether someone who has broken into your house is there just to steal your stuff or is there to assault you.
There is no doubt in my mind that, in the highly unlikely event that I ever have to defend myself or my household, if at all possible I will use and gun and I will leave no survivors (hence my fondness for high-capacity magazines). When I tell the cops that I reasonably felt my life to be threatened, I won’t care to be contradicted by someone who doesn’t have my best interests at heart.
Jason–
Your home address please. I’ll send some people to break in. You’ll just have to assume they won’t harm you.
Brian, I have a better idea. Have a large sign made and send it to Jason. He will put it up in his front yard. The sign will read:
“BURGLARS, if your only intention is to steal my possesions, I will not harm you in any way”
There is a reason why all the anti-gun nuts in the U.S. will not put a signs in their front yards reading, “We are a gun free household.” Care to guess the reason? That’s correct mon ami they’re hypocrites, they hide themselves behind other Americans practicing the 2nd admendment. Cowards!
Praise Jebus that Jason wasn’t the DA when an old girlfriend killed two scumbags intent on raping and murdering her in her own home.
As luck would have it, she did everything right. She fought back, retreated to her bedroom (where her .45 pistol was) and waited. The scumbags had the chance to leave by the front door, taking her purse and money and making a clean getaway. They chose to come after her.
They opened the bedroom door, they died.
From what I understand, the DA at the mandatory Grand Jury hearing essentially said that the victim commited no crime whatsoever, that this hearing was required by law and that the Grand Jury should return a No True Bill ASAP so we can all go and get lunch.
She still has the gun. She still has her life. Two violent career criminals went to Potter’s Field.
’tis a pity Brendon Fearon didn’t join them there.
Well, the dye is cast and the matter will go to trial. I feel very sad for Tony Martin. His suffering will be dragged out. He is obviously unworldy and eccentric, and not an eloquent or educated man. No doubt he is easy meat for a skilled silk.
With any luck the judgement will take account of natural justice and, thereby, embody the weight of public opinion. But it’s a rum way to clarify something that for almost layman is already perfectly clear. If it goes wrong for Martin it goes wrong for the rest of the burgled public. He should become even more of a cause celebre in the struggle to give householders their proper, protective rights.
I certainly hope Mr. Martin improves his marksmanship and uses a large caliber, soft point bullet next time. If the exit hole is smaller than fist sized, he needs to upgrade.
There are three different (rationally speaking independent) issues here getting muddled up:–
First, the question of whether Martin should have been convicted of a crime;
Second, should there have been any crime available to him to commit?–which is what exercises most folk here; and
Third, the question of Fearon’s claim–should he have one?
I’m rather tired of 1 and s, so I’ll say something about 3, and let the slavering rants about the other two continue in peace.
The law once coped perfectly well with such a situation. There was a maxim ex turpi non oritur causa which was applied to ensure no-one could sue another for the consequences of his own wrongful action. It was being steadily eroded before the Human Rights Act–much to this writer’s dismay–but from the judge’s quoted comments it seems that the HRA has finally seen an end to it.
The Convention that the HRA incorporates into English law has peculiar defects, but I’m inclined to think that you run into the same sort of problems whenever you start to derive your judgments directly from an arbitary set of universal rights.
Mitch, he used a shotgun – don’t know what size shot he used, but it was probably birdshot not SSG or slug… As we all know, at across-the-room distance it doesn’t matter much.
Your recommendation for large calibre softpoint is very sound – I had a nice load in 45 Auto using the Speer 250gr SP when handguns were still legal here – but I’d point out that in the UK even the possession of “expanding ammunition” can get you into trouble! My rifles are certificated for vermin control so I can handload with hollowpoints (etc), but technically, if a policeman were to search someone and found merely a hollowpoint bullet (not a live round, just the projectile) in a calibre he was not certificated for, the guy would have a tough time. Believe it or not…
Latest on the Tony Martin case: The police are aware that the gypsy friends of the repeat felon that Martin shot dead have put a £60,000 price on his head after he gets out of prison. So, apparently killing someone in self-defence in your own home in the dead of night attracts the deadliest penalty (Martin was originally sentenced to life). But solicitation to murder is no big deal.
Police and officialdom, aware of the threats, decided that for Martin’s own safety, he should be moved overseas and given a new identity after he is released. This was to cost the taxpayer around £500,000 and Tony Martin his way of life, but was apparently seen as an easier option than simply dropping round on the dead burglar’s mates and arresting them.
Even this harebrained scheme has now been abandoned, however, because Scotland Yard police officers in the Witness Protection Scheme has been told that Fearon (the felon who sadly only got wounded and has over 30 criminal convictions) as a “victim of a serious crime” must be notified of Martin’s whereabouts. Wait! That’s not all! Fearon is entitled to state an opinion on Martin’s release under the government’s Victims Charter. He will also be entitled to express views on where Martin is allowed to live. If Fearon has particular concerns, Martin may be subjected to a restriction or exclusion order.
Who does not sense the jackboot of a vinctivie state whose authority – no using guns in self-defence – was defied by someone who had the effrontery to defend himself against two intruders in the dead of night?
Sorry. vindictive state.
Sorry. vindictive state.
I realise this thread is probably moribund by now, but having been delayed by travel, I still did want to pick up on a comment made by Ms Belle, who said:
“Who does not sense the jackboot of a vinctivie state whose authority – no using guns in self-defence – was defied by someone who had the effrontery to defend himself against two intruders in the dead of night?”
It’s curious to note which elements of the state are at work here. One gets a strong sense that David Blunkett is champing at the bit to get to grips with the legal establishment and that his mate, Squeaky Tone, is sensing a rapid loss of public support – hence the recent and profound changes proposed to the British constitution by these two.
The point is that those responsible for the outrageous martyrdom of Tony Martin are less the politicians than the creepy socialist ladder-climbers who have infested the British legal system, like so many lice.
Many of the ’60/70s generation, being propelled along the escalator of educational stardom, elected to study law specifically as an instrument of change, without having to have recourse to the grubby business of being voted for. Some (Jack Straw and Phony Tony among them
later decided to go straight to the heart of the legislative sausage machine, by running for office (Charlie Falconer didn’t even bother – he got his former flatmate Tony to give him the Lord Chancellor’s job as a bung).
The fact remains that the damage that has been done here has been done less by politicians than by people for whom we are never allowed to cast a vote – QCs, defence barristers, probation officers, judges, magistrates, Crown Prosecution Service robots and Chief Constables.
All of which makes the last three days very disturbing because Blair & Co are right in saying that the legal trade needs poison and traps put down in its rat runs. The way they have gone about it is, of course, profoundly and deeply disturbing – but I find myself uncomfortably close to agreeing with some of the fundamental ideas behind it. It is, after all, the only way we will stop these closet Marxists persecuting the likes of Mr. Martin.
No thread can be moribund when it contains as its last posting the astute observations of G Cooper. “… creepy socialist ladder climbers, who have infested the British legal system like so many lice.”
Well said and undeniable. And they were on their way up the ladder, rung by rotting rung, during John Major’s premiership as well; I’ll even give you that.
Nevertheless, it was this prissy, interfering, perverse government of second and third raters that set the scene for their takeover. The social workers and lefty judges and lawyers, probation officers, magistrates, police and so on are now nurtured and approved of as true soldiers of the cause (or Project) and thrown ever more pillars of British society and history to munch on. The lice and the termites are on the march, to the smiling approval of Tony Blair, the ever-vapid Jack Straw, interfering Patricia Hewitt, dimwitted Tessa Jowell, plodder Estelle Morris and others even less memorable. Oddly, I would exempt John Prescott from this sorry parade. He’s the only one who gets up in the morning unburdened by “the vision thing” and seems not to show much interest in managing the minutia of other people’s lives. Maybe because he is blessed by never having attended a university.
Meanwhile, Tony Martin’s trials are only just beginning. As next month he will have served the percentage of his incarceration that will legally require him to be released on parole, he will be subject to the dainty opinions of Brendan Fearon about where he should be allowed to live and to the tender attentions of friends of the late great Fred Barras who have stated their intent to have him murdered for £60,000. I just do not believe this hateful drama would have been allowed to be played out under a Conservative government, even given the same cast of lice. The Parole Board, whose chairman, incidentally, is a former BBC producer – quelle surprise – would have been slapped back. The government would have responded to public outrage instead of trying to teach the public a lesson. The fact is, the screws are being tightened on Tony Martin’s thumbs with the warm approval of Tony Blair & Co.
Well, I reckon Martin, who must be thoroughly traumatised by all this (jail and now a crippling civil court action) should himself employ rights legislation in order to countersue the burglar for pain and suffering resulting to him and his family from the invasion of his home and subsequent persecution.
Dave F – What would be the point? Brendan Fearon’s a petty thief with in excess of 30 convictions. He comes from an outlaw family – the thankfully late Fred Barras was his cousin. I doubt very much whether he has a home of his own. Probably stays with girlfriends or sleeps rough in a battered old car. We are talking the bottom rung here.
There has been a fund set up for Tony Martin. I just hope his lawyers have got it water tight and that the money is never in Martin’s name, so it can’t be seized.
“The point is that those responsible for the outrageous martyrdom of Tony Martin are less the politicians than the creepy socialist ladder-climbers who have infested the British legal system, like so many lice.”
Perfectly correct. A lot of the blame for the Tony Martin fiasco has been laid at the feet of Tony Blair and Nulabour but, in fact, the culture responsible is solely that of the judiciary which is infested with crusading marxoid types who regard people like Mr.Martin as ‘aggressors’ by virtue of the fact that they own property and people like Fearon as ‘victims’ because they do not.
As a lawyer, I know these people only too well. I have worked and moved among them for years. Of course, many lawyers do not fall into this category but it is the ones who do that are most likely to devote their careers to climbing up the greasy pole of the judicial ladder, advancing their various causes and agendas on the way.
David Carr – Why is this? Why is there such a hunger in the current British legal profession to turn natural justice upside down? To what end? The destruction of the society on which their livelihoods depend?
Liberty Belle,
They simply have no comprehension of the things that underpin and facilitate a good and worthwhile society. They labour under the same warped marxoid worldview as do their lay brethren in the meeja and other places.
To their minds, all problems are caused by inequality or a deficiency or law and regulation.
It is a view which perfectly complements their ‘class interest’. Because their fees are paid from the public purse (Legal Aid), their wealth and status is almost entirely dependent upon state activism.
Thank you. Yes, that’s what I thought: victim advocacy pays. Even incompetents and the mediocre can make a living at it. (I wonder whether Tony Blair ever got a brief that wasn’t paid for out of the public purse?) But I’m still perplexed by some of the brighter ones, though. Why does the comprehension of what makes a civil and workable society escape them while being obvious to the rest of us, and our forefathers back into antiquity? Why is a whole tranche of, if not bright, at least not totally stupid (or maybe they are), people disconnected from the thread of history and their own forebears? Do Marxist professors really have that much power to burrow into the human brain?
Liberty Belle,
Isn’t it merely a reflection of the extent to which bad ideas have achieved a near-hegemony? You don’t need me to tell you that marxoid thinking is common among Doctors, Scientists, Journalists, Writers and all manner of sundry ‘intallec-chools’.
Unfortunately, neither an expensive education nor a high IQ are any guarantee of any capacity for clear thinking.
By the way, having encountered enough of these people, I can assure you that they are convinced that it is they who are right and worthy and we who are dim-witted, warped and malevolent.