Well, we couldn’t get a more perfect situation in which to fully assess this “stand your ground” proposal by the Opposition Leader.

A woman alone with her daughter uses a firearm (though legally owned by an apparent occupant of the home) to stop an alleged intruder. I wouldn’t venture to comment on that situation as all the facts haven’t been confirmed by police investigation or otherwise. However, I will comment on the principle of the suggested legislation.

Now as bad as some will want to make of this “stand your ground” proposal, I do not think it is a bad policy although existing principles of law may deem it unnecessary. This we will soon find out when the DPP gives direction on this last incident.

Should the DPP direct that no charges be laid, then there may be no need for new legislation. However, if this single mother is charged, then the proposed legislation will be necessary to guard these potential victims of home invasions from the rigours of facing prosecution, together with the trauma that comes with it.

I personally believe it will be a very useful strategy to treat with the threat of home invasions and other levels of intrusion that can result in crimes such as murder, rape, robberies and woundings, not to mention other lesser crimes such as larceny, burglaries and the like.

The right to privacy and protection of property is a constitutional right. The question remains to what extent should we be allowed to protect these rights without the risk of being excessive and thus unlawful.

I myself have been the victim of intrusion of my property, not to the extent of home invasion thankfully, but intrusion none the less as items were stolen from my secured premises while I was at work. On another occasion I had to detain a trespasser I found prowling on my premises.

So, although I agree with the principle of having a right to protect yourself and your property, especially when in your home, I would nevertheless suggest the following as conditions to be satisfied (particularly for holders of a firearms user’s licence and FUL applicants) in an effort to minimise “collateral damage” to those intruders who were only trespassing with no criminal intentions but nevertheless invading your privacy.

Firstly, it should be mandatory that the premises be clearly identifiable by the presence of a perimeter fence constructed in conformity with approved survey plans to avoid accidental or unintentional entry, or to prevent excessive force being used to settle neighbour boundary disputes when one neighbour decides to stand his/her ground.

Secondly, there should be a clearly noticeable and functioning doorbell so that there will be no reasonable excuse to enter the premises unannounced.

Thirdly, the premises should be fitted with surveillance cameras that must be able to be used to verify or indicate what transpired on any particular occasion. This is to apply particularly for use of firearms and other lethal weapons, as would be absolutely useful in this recent incident.

And fourthly, the owner/occupier of the premises must have ready access to an audible warning device that must be used prior to resorting to the use of force.

If after these measures have been engaged and an intruder continues to advance it will be more reasonable to justify that the use of force was necessary and lawful, unless disproved by other contradicting facts. A man’s (woman’s) home is his castle and he should be allowed the right to defend his throne.

C MARSHALL

retired police officer