Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A farmer who used a telehandler to pick up a car and dump it in a road to defend his property has been cleared of dangerous driving and criminal damage.
Robert Hooper, 57, had told Durham Crown Court he felt "frightened and threatened" when he took the action.
He had argued an "Englishman's home is his castle", and he had been assaulted before he used his vehicle to remove the Corsa in County Durham last June.
Mobile footage also showed its lifting rails striking shirtless Charlie Burns.
Mr Burns, 21, who had been visiting Low Force waterfall with friends and had drunk up to seven bottles of lager, was knocked to the floor by the vehicle.
The car had been parked by Mr Burns' friend, Elliott Johnson, at Mr Hooper's property in Newbiggin-in-Teesdale after suffering a double puncture.
The jury cleared Mr Hooper after a four-day trial.
The hill farmer had told the court he was punched by Mr Burns when he first politely asked the men to leave as they were blocking access to his property.
He was aware of an "influx" of youths visiting the area that summer, causing anti-social behaviour, littering and damaging walls, the jury heard.
Mr Hooper claimed Mr Burns had punched him twice through the window of the farm vehicle he was driving, bursting his lip.
"I thought it is time to get out of there, and I said, 'If you don't move it, I will'," he told the court. "My mind was racing."
Mr Hooper said he was concerned at what the two young men might do and "what they had in terms of weapons".
"I thought if the car was off the property, that would be them off the property, out of the way," he added.
The court heard that the farmer felt he was defending his property and himself.
"I felt threatened and an Englishman's home is his castle, and my castle starts at that front gate," he said.
Michael Rawlinson, defending, gave the origin of the saying in his closing speech to the jury, referring back to the judge Sir Edward Coke's comments which set legal precedents in 1604.
WHY were charges even filed in the first place?!! There was no crime here.
The farmer was charged with dangerous driving and criminal damage but was cleared by a Jury, as they believed he had used reasonable force.
There is no specific definition of what constitutes reasonable force, so it can be left up to a Jury to decide, whilst in terms of the police they just gather the evidence and pass it on to the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers who make the ultimate decision regarding any prosecution.
The right decision was made, however I would like to see those responsible for the assault on the farmer and the aggravated trespass to go before the Courts.
The farmer was charged with dangerous driving and criminal damage but was cleared by a Jury, as they believed he had used reasonable force.
There is no specific definition of what constitutes reasonable force, so it can be left up to a Jury to decide, whilst in terms of the police they just gather the evidence and pass it on to the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers who make the ultimate decision regarding any prosecution.
The right decision was made, however I would like to see those responsible for the assault on the farmer and the aggravated trespass to go before the Courts.
Yes, this is what I have a problem with...its not something that should have even reached the point of going to a jury.
Plenty of other examples exist, but why is it, police never conclude that incidents are totally justified, and just leave it at that? Like another thread, kids kill a relative who was molesting them...surely police at the scene gather facts, talk to other family members, if they conclude the kids were indeed being molested, just chalk it up to 'kids doing the right thing'? No need to take it further, to an actual court trial.
I get the impression though, in the US justice system, cops and prosecutors believe EVERYTHING needs to be sorted out in a court of a law, (even if details are evident at the scene,that it was justified). Prosecutors are most often guilty of this from what Ive seen
I get the impression though, in the US justice system, cops and prosecutors believe EVERYTHING needs to be sorted out in a court of a law, (even if details are evident at the scene,that it was justified). Prosecutors are most often guilty of this from what Ive seen
Depends on what state you live in. Many rural areas here in the US the Farmer would not only been given an award but his Buddies would have come over and crushed that car to make recycled Beer cans.
Yes, this is what I have a problem with...its not something that should have even reached the point of going to a jury.
Plenty of other examples exist, but why is it, police never conclude that incidents are totally justified, and just leave it at that? Like another thread, kids kill a relative who was molesting them...surely police at the scene gather facts, talk to other family members, if they conclude the kids were indeed being molested, just chalk it up to 'kids doing the right thing'? No need to take it further, to an actual court trial.
I get the impression though, in the US justice system, cops and prosecutors believe EVERYTHING needs to be sorted out in a court of a law, (even if details are evident at the scene,that it was justified). Prosecutors are most often guilty of this from what Ive seen
Because that would be anarchy.
Yes, everything needs to be sorted by due process.
People can't be allowed to kill someone else and walk away simply because they feel justified. A cop can't decide "oh that's okay he deserved it let those guys go".
Yes, this is what I have a problem with...its not something that should have even reached the point of going to a jury.
Plenty of other examples exist, but why is it, police never conclude that incidents are totally justified, and just leave it at that? Like another thread, kids kill a relative who was molesting them...surely police at the scene gather facts, talk to other family members, if they conclude the kids were indeed being molested, just chalk it up to 'kids doing the right thing'? No need to take it further, to an actual court trial.
I get the impression though, in the US justice system, cops and prosecutors believe EVERYTHING needs to be sorted out in a court of a law, (even if details are evident at the scene,that it was justified). Prosecutors are most often guilty of this from what Ive seen
English Law is different to US law where rights are written out in the form of a Bill of Rights and Constitution.
In England, the law and rights are set out through lots of different acts ad their interpretations, and previous case laws forma judicial precedence which must be followed.
In this case it was established by the Jury that refer Sir Edward Coke (1552 - 1634), 'An English man's home is his Castle' which set legal precedents in 1604, still very much applied and will to future cases.
Coke was a very important legal figure, who prepared the Resolutions, which later led to the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, and who helped ensure that Magna Carta remained an important legal force.
The US Bill of Rights and Constitution have Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus at their very heart, and as the most basic of freedoms.
The US Castle Doctrine also takes it's name from Coke's legal precedent in English Law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:
For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge].
The term 'castle' was defined in 1763 by Prime Minister William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.
Any future cases will now have to take this decision (precedent) in to account when considering whether to prosecute and any possible directions in relation to a Jury by the Judge, who must also abide by this judicial precedent.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-09-2022 at 06:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
