Tony Martin

Crazy Guy

Saturday, 14 June 2003
Injured burglar can sue farmer
BRENDON Fearon, the burglar who was shot and injured by Tony Martin, yesterday won the right to sue the jailed farmer for damages. A judge at Nottingham County Court overturned an earlier decision which threw out his claim.

That's our justice system for you. Crazy set up that allows the attacker to sue the victim.

Mind you I blame Tony Martin.

If he had better aim or a quicker gun he should have shot this ******* as well.
It's not a crazy world at all, since this world becomes exactly what we make it. No point saying it's crazy when each and every one of us contributes to the state of it, by excepting everything we are told at face value. We only have ourselves to blame.
if yuo think it's crazy now, wait until yuor new Justice Dept. kicks in

it's gonna be based on our Supreme Court

if my bud Legal Boi was representing this burglar dude, $125,000, SURE THING!

Ra! for Tony Blair

i hate to say this, but if yuo really want to cut down on crime and avoid these crazy situations, take a peek at how they do things in Singapore...
Our Police Expert says,
THE FIRST PROVISION is section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which states:

3(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large .


If there is a question as to whether excessive force was used, there is a test laid down which determines the matter (it principally applies to self-defence but, similarly, can be applied in determining whether excessive force was used):

'A jury must decide whether a defendant honestly believed that the circumstances were such as required him to use force to defend himself from an attack or threatened attack the jury has then to decide whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances ' (R v Owino 1996 and
confirmed in DPP v Armstrong-Braun 1998)

Note that this is basically an 'objective ' test determined by the jury. They do not have to consider whether the defendant thought his/her actions were reasonable in the circumstances. They just have to consider what they
believe was reasonable.

From my limited knowledge of civil law it appears that any person can issue a summons against another if they believe that that other person has failed in a 'Duty of Care' element towards that other person. In the normal course of events, an individual should not be able to benefit from committing a criminal act.

However the Judge at Nottingham County Court stated "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. He said that the case would be sent to the High Court because of the amount of public interest and because of the complex nature of matters to be decided.
District Judge Oliver said that the full hearing must consider what rights a householder has to protect his property and also whether a burglar can be deemed to be outside of the law

Forum Your Southend. Topic Ask the Police