I'm very proud of my son

[Garry Edwards]

There have been 2 new developments.
Following the first one, the police Professional Standards Dept stepped in and decided to investigate the conduct of certain police officers, without being asked to.

Then further evidence came to light, which has made in inappropriate for the force to investigate themselves, and it has now been referred to the IPCC. The reason for this is centred around the nature of the alleged misconduct and the seniority of the person or persons responsible.

Because of this, I won't be saying anything more on the subject, other than to say that nobody in the family wanted this.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Thanks for the update Garry.

 

[Dave *]

So the story continues, just been a report on BBC Look North.

Garry and Bill giving comments about the guns still not being returned.

Almost an unbiased report, other than the "you can't shoot at cars" comment by the reporter and an attempt to liken the shooting to the Tony Martin case :shake:.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

So the story continues, just been a report on BBC Look North.

Garry and Bill giving comments about the guns still not being returned.

Almost an unbiased report, other than the "you can't shoot at cars" comment by the reporter and an attempt to liken the shooting to the Tony Martin case :shake:.

Dave

A Gormless reporter eh?

His moment of fame???

Steve

 

[Garry Edwards]

And in the DM too.

I was very unhappy at that BBC report. Among other things the statement that I thought Bill's case was similar to the Tony Martin case was entirely made up, Tony Martin wasn't mentioned at the time and there is absolutely no similarity between someone who was forced to open fire to save his mother's life, who has been completely cleared of wrongdoing and who was in lawful possession of a firearm, and someone who shot a burglar in the back as he ran away, with an illegally held firearm. Editing responses to give the slant they want to portray is bad enough, inventing things is way out of order.

If the BBC want any more interviews, we will only agree to live ones in their studio.

You may have noticed the field in that piece. It's big, and it's empty - up the top is woodland, foxes live there. There should be at least 100 sheep and up to 200 lambs there but as Bill can't protect the lambs from the foxes, the land is empty and earning nothing. The irony of course is that the same police force that is now causing this financial hardship also issued his firearms certificate for the .243 rifle needed to protect the sheep, because he had a good reason for needing it...

The situation with Bill hasn't moved on at all. He had a meeting with their Firearms Licensing Manager in January, and we both had another meeting with him in February. During this meeting it came up that the police allegedly found 3 empty cartridges on the public bridleway outside the farm, indicating that Bill had continued firing at the thief as he drove off, which of course would have been a very wrong thing to do. When asked for photos of where they were found, fingerprints and DNA to establish whether they were his or not, the answer - difficult to believe as it is - was that a PCSO found them and simply put them into his pocket.

Obviously, if they did exist then they would have been strong evidence of attempted murder, and the police would have raised the subject during interviews, but they didn't.

A written request for this evidence has been ignored.

All we want is for the police either to return his guns (they have held 2 rifles and 3 shotguns illegally since last August and 1 shotgun illegally since December) or formally revoke his certificates, so that we can appeal to the Crown Court, where the truth will come out. But, even though the decision taker (Ass Ch Constable) has had the full report since March, we have still heard nothing.

This, together with other strokes pulled, leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. This comment applies only to certain very senior police officers, not to the front line officers.

His moment of fame???

Dave, he doesn't want a moment of fame, he just wants to get on with his life and earn his living. He won't claim benefits, so is really struggling.

 

[Dave *]

Dave, he doesn't want a moment of fame, he just wants to get on with his life and earn his living.

It was Hugh who made that comment, and I think he means the idiotic reporter, not Bill.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Sympathies Garry.

 

[Cobra]

I really can't believe this is still going on
I hope it all gets sorted PDQ Garry

 

[Steep]

If you think the news reporter made up a statement he attributed to you file a complaint with Ofcom, don't let him get away with it.

 

[Garry Edwards]

If you think the news reporter made up a statement he attributed to you file a complaint with Ofcom, don't let him get away with it.

Actual words, voiced over a shot of Tony Martin in his car:
"A parallel, but far less serious, the case 14 years ago, when Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead a burglar in his home. But Bill Edwards father claims the principle is the same"
It then immediately cut to me, saying "Bill exercised enormous self control and restraint in damaging the van to stop the attack. He should be getting a medal for this."

They edited out the bit immediately before that, where I said that I felt that many people, faced with the danger of that situation, would probably have shot the attacker, not his van. They also edited out the bit that I said about Bill having behaved honestly and truthfully throughout, and that all that we were asking was that certain police officers behave in the same way. That's fair enough, they are entitled to edit, even if it changes the whole meaning of what was said. But they aren't entitled to make stuff up, and attribute statements to me that were not made.

Both Bill and I have been interviewed by the BBC (and others) several times, and in the past their coverage has been accurate. This time, not only did they falsely attribute my approval to the actions of a convicted killer, they also made a point of showing items stored there that both Bill and myself made a point of saying must not be shown to be there, because we don't want to tell thieves that there is still stuff there to be stolen.

Yes, I can complain, but that will probably make me look like a troublemaker, and certain senior police officers, plus the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire probably think that of me already. I know that there are TP members who are involved in the media, what do you think?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Back in February, Bill was forced to make an official complaint about police misconduct.
There were various issues, including trying to get him to sign a false statement, the illegal actions of a senior officer, false information put into the public domain and the creation of false evidence.

Naively, we thought that these complaints would be investigated by the IPCC but no, they had to be investigated internally, and before meeting their investigator we thought that there would be a cover up. After meeting him, we were sure that there would be a cover up, and unfortunately we were right.

The "investigation" has now been completed and we have their full report. They have totally ignored the most serious complaints, and glossed over others, simply accepting the statements made by their own police officers, even when there is strong evidence that they are untrue.

The PSD report amounts to nothing more than an incompetent and biased charade masquerading as an impartial investigation, and I reject it.

The question is, where to go from here... Personally I feel that the only way forward is through the Court system, which is truly impartial. The Courts seem to me to be the only institution able and willing to hold the police to account.

 

[big soft moose]

Surely the first step is to appeal

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/appeals_police_investigation.aspx#02

that aside , i'd consider how much energy, time and money it is worth throwing at this - if you take it to court costs could be considerable for very little tangible gain

 

[Garry Edwards]

That's something that we can do...
But the only appeal is to the IPCC itself, they are massively under-resourced and, according to the Police & Crime Commissioner, they can only investigate the process that led to the findings - and if the process meets their requirements, we will get nowhere. Passing it on to them will give them a false credibility.

And, once that process has been completed, there will be absolutely nowhere else to go.

Some politicians are saying that the whole complaints procedure isn't fit for purpose and needs a radical overhaul. Meanwhile, we can only work within the system that we have.

All that we're trying to do here is to bring the truth out into the open, so that others in the future don't suffer similar experiences.

And, I repeat - the problems are not with the front line police, most of whom were brilliant.

 

[big soft moose]

All that we're trying to do here is to bring the truth out into the open, so that others in the future don't suffer similar experiences.

And, I repeat - the problems are not with the front line police, most of whom were brilliant.

Thats a laudible intention - but the likely result will be to make the force waste resources that could have been better used supporting those front line police, while also running up a huge legal bill yourself - which even if you win is pretty much the essence of a phyrric victory

 

[akr]

Thats a laudible intention - but the likely result will be to make the force waste resources that could have been better used supporting those front line police, while also running up a huge legal bill yourself - which even if you win is pretty much the essence of a phyrric victory

Perhaps in the short-term, but if this happened more arguably some of the areas Garry is talking about should occur less in the future, meaning less wasted police resource based on bad, and worse, procedures, over the long-term, which would be good for everyone.

That sentence has too many commas

 

[Garry Edwards]

There are two organisations that have expressed an interest in paying for the legal costs. If we decide to go down that route, and if they don't fund the costs, then it doesn't matter because I'm fortunate enough to be able to fund it myself.

This is all about principles here - I truly believe that we have the finest police forces in the world, but the people on the ground are being let down by some of those above them, and the public deserve much better.

 

[onomatopoeia]

but the likely result will be to make the force waste resources that could have been better used supporting those front line police

That is not a reason not to do it. If failings are not challenged then they will persist. Public bodies must be held accountable for their actions, the fact that they do important work should not mean they are not held accountable because it costs too much to defend themselves against accusations. If they do important work then it is important that they should do it properly and not be above their work being challenged when it falls short of the expected standard.

 

[big soft moose]

That is not a reason not to do it. If failings are not challenged then they will persist. Public bodies must be held accountable for their actions, the fact that they do important work should not mean they are not held accountable because it costs too much to defend themselves against accusations. If they do important work then it is important that they should do it properly and not be above their work being challenged when it falls short of the expected standard.

so you think its acceptable to waste public money by forcing them to defend a lawsuit ?

My opinion is that it is not - the issue has been raised , 'investigated' by the PS of the force concerned , and can be appealed to the IPPC - if the IPPC find the investigation was carried out properly then that should be the end of the matter.

 

[simonblue]

Sorry to hear about your trouble i can fully understand why you want to take this further,good luck with any action you take

 

[Garry Edwards]

so you think its acceptable to waste public money by forcing them to defend a lawsuit ?

My opinion is that it is not - the issue has been raised , 'investigated' by the PS of the force concerned , and can be appealed to the IPPC - if the IPPC find the investigation was carried out properly then that should be the end of the matter.

Nobody will be forced to spend any public money defending a lawsuit. They will have the option of admitting fault, or defending. If they defend and win, they will get their costs.

As for the IPCC, if I believed that they are fit for purpose and would do their job properly, I would go down that route in a flash - but there are a number of high profile cases where they have been accused (usually by Coroners) of obstructing justice, and there are plenty of other cases where people are saying that they are unbelievably slow, incompetent and biased. I don't know the truth of these statements, but they make me wary.

 

[Steep]

If you have no faith in the institutional complaints process your only option is a private case, best of luck to you with it.

 

[big soft moose]

Nobody will be forced to spend any public money defending a lawsuit. They will have the option of admitting fault, or defending. If they defend and win, they will get their costs.
.

As soon as it gets anywhere near a court you can forget the admitting fault option as theres no way any public body will admit anything that they might then have to pay compensation for

equally if they defend and win they might get their costs, or a court might decide that each party sould bear their own - but even if costs are awarded this still won't cover all the officer time which will be tied up with defending the case.

At the end of the day my view is that this is becoming blown out of proportion - okay so the way they handled your sons arrest wasnt very clever, but at the end of the day no actual harm was done, he hasnt gone to jail or been wrongfully fined etc , so why not just let it go and get on with his/your life and let the police get on with enforcing the law and catching crooks.

 

[Russ77]

At the end of the day my view is that this is becoming blown out of proportion - okay so the way they handled your sons arrest wasnt very clever, but at the end of the day no actual harm was done, he hasnt gone to jail or been wrongfully fined etc , so why not just let it go and get on with his/your life and let the police get on with enforcing the law and catching crooks.

Although from what I've been led to believe, Garry's son still doesn't have his guns back and is unable to earn his living..... that's a lot of earnings he's lost so I'd say a fair bit of actual harm's been done.

 

[Dave *]

Although from what I've been led to believe, Garry's son still doesn't have his guns back and is unable to earn his living..... that's a lot of earnings he's lost so I'd say a fair bit of actual harm's been done.

Agreed, if Garry and family allow the police force to get away with the poor service it just means another member of the public will be put through the same thing in the future.

If they won't admit to their faults voluntarily they need to be forced to change their poor practises.

 

[gramps]

Looks like both earnings and reputation are involved here ... hard for anyone to advise without knowing everything involved and I guess only Gary and his son/wife can decide.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yes, the police are still holding onto his guns and rifles, this is causing massive financial problems. Since his arrest last August, he has earned between £5-6000. And the police refusal to release his property is illegal. Prior to 20/12/12 they had the legal right to hold on to the one gun that was used in the incident, but no right to hold onto any of the others, and no right even to hold onto that one since then. He wanted them passed to me, they refused even though I have the lawful authority needed for them. If I had them I would have been able to do (a limited) amount of pest control work for him. Obviously I have my own rifles, but they are not conditioned for foxes so I need to use his .243 for that.

And in January, he was libelled on radio. It was said that he had placed the public in danger, that was a downright lie, a senior police officer says that it was a misunderstanding. Since then, he has lost his reputation and can't get any work.

If anyone wants to read the whole story, it's on www.farmerbill.info
Obviously that's just his/mine version of events, but if any of the people named on there feel that they have been libelled, they can sue me. I'm worth suing.

The current situation is that I have today written to the Police & Crime Commissioner and have basically given her 7 days to respond.

He's my son. He saved his mother's life, I have a duty to save his reputation and protect his income.

 

[simonblue]

Yes, the police are still holding onto his guns and rifles, this is causing massive financial problems. Since his arrest last August, he has earned between £5-6000. And the police refusal to release his property is illegal. Prior to 20/12/12 they had the legal right to hold on to the one gun that was used in the incident, but no right to hold onto any of the others, and no right even to hold onto that one since then. He wanted them passed to me, they refused even though I have the lawful authority needed for them. If I had them I would have been able to do (a limited) amount of pest control work for him. Obviously I have my own rifles, but they are not conditioned for foxes so I need to use his .243 for that.

And in January, he was libelled on radio. It was said that he had placed the public in danger, that was a downright lie, a senior police officer says that it was a misunderstanding. Since then, he has lost his reputation and can't get any work.

If anyone wants to read the whole story, it's on www.farmerbill.info
Obviously that's just his/mine version of events, but if any of the people named on there feel that they have been libelled, they can sue me. I'm worth suing.

The current situation is that I have today written to the Police & Crime Commissioner and have basically given her 7 days to respond.

He's my son. He saved his mother's life, I have a duty to save his reputation and protect his income.

You do you have my full support this just seem the police are being stubborn in this case.
As i have said good luck.

 

[Russ77]

You do you have my full support this just seem the police are being stubborn in this case.
As i have said good luck.

For what it's worth Garry +1 from me too!

Let's work on the basis it wasn't fluke that your Son didn't actually shoot the robber/thief, the fact that he prevented serious injury (or worse) to himself or his mum WITHOUT injuring the assailant shows clear, concise thinking under extreme pressure, for that IMO he deserve a frickin' medal!!! Again, for what it's worth if he had have shot the guy then tough luck, if he wasn't doing any wrong he wouldn't have got shot!

By all accounts your Son's come off worse than the guy actually committing the crime here.... how can that be right?

The way the Police seem to have handled this is scandalous and those involved who have muddied the waters need to be taken to task, although this is obviously easier said than done :bang:

 

[odd jim]

Back in February, Bill was forced to make an official complaint about police misconduct.
There were various issues, including trying to get him to sign a false statement, the illegal actions of a senior officer, false information put into the public domain and the creation of false evidence.

Naively, we thought that these complaints would be investigated by the IPCC but no, they had to be investigated internally, and before meeting their investigator we thought that there would be a cover up. After meeting him, we were sure that there would be a cover up, and unfortunately we were right.

The "investigation" has now been completed and we have their full report. They have totally ignored the most serious complaints, and glossed over others, simply accepting the statements made by their own police officers, even when there is strong evidence that they are untrue.

The PSD report amounts to nothing more than an incompetent and biased charade masquerading as an impartial investigation, and I reject it.

The question is, where to go from here... Personally I feel that the only way forward is through the Court system, which is truly impartial. The Courts seem to me to be the only institution able and willing to hold the police to account.

That's unusual.

PSD departments historically love to destroy decent police officers lives. Maybe they only go after the good ones, and leave the properly corrupt ones (which are VERY few and far between) alone.?

 

[Garry Edwards]

That's unusual.

PSD departments historically love to destroy decent police officers lives. Maybe they only go after the good ones, and leave the properly corrupt ones (which are VERY few and far between) alone.?

Jim, I just don't know.
In this case, they found that a Custody Sgt who made a mistake with his paperwork has done wrong. The only other person involved in this complaint that doesn't wear gold braid is a DC who prepared a false statement for Bill to sign and then lied to him, saying that his own solicitor wanted him to sign it - but he was acting on instructions from a DI, who was acting on instructions from a DS. Other complaints involved the same DS and a C/Supt.

Maybe it's only the workers who are hung out to dry. But a solicitor I spoke to today told me that PS departments routinely produce a whitewash, knowing that they are pretty well untouchable, so maybe it's a case of producing figures that show that their force doesn't employ officers who tell lies and create false evidence - as I say, I just don't know. I can't speculate on motives, all that I can do is to prove that the PSD investigation wasn't carried out properly and that their findings are wrong.

 

[odd jim]

No doubt the custody Sgt (who probably made an honest mistake just doing what he/she had to do) was hung out and disciplined but the 'senior' officers left well alone - that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I used to think the 'best' investigators worked for PSD depts, they have to investigate professional investigators after all. However, an experience which lasted all of 2011 and part of 2012 taught me otherwise (which was revealed after I complained and they themselves were investigated - that opened a huge can of worms!).

 

[madmatt]

gary, first of all im sorry for what you and your family have had to go through. i 100% feel your pain.

i have been through something very simular, and ended up dropping my complaint against the police even though it drove me to the point of suicide. i wished i had kept up my fight. i had written for about an hour my story on here, but dont want it dragged up again as im in a much better place now, and also everything that happened then helped me start up my own photography business.

its fair to say i still love the police, but the people above them, well some of them are so bent its unreal. its shocking what they do and get away with, and there seems to be nothing we can do :-(

good luck with everything, u have my total support

 

[Garry Edwards]

No doubt the custody Sgt (who probably made an honest mistake just doing what he/she had to do) was hung out and disciplined but the 'senior' officers left well alone - that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I used to think the 'best' investigators worked for PSD depts, they have to investigate professional investigators after all. However, an experience which lasted all of 2011 and part of 2012 taught me otherwise (which was revealed after I complained and they themselves were investigated - that opened a huge can of worms!).

The appointed investigator in this case is an elderly gentleman, late 60's I'd guess. He has "Retired Custody Sgt or retired desk officer" written all over him. PSD investigations are a wonderful job for people like that, no time pressures, no dangers, no shift work, no (positive) targets to meet, just income on top of his pension. From what I've heard, that's typical.

And the people who actually run these departments tend to be high flyers who, I'm guessing, don't want to make waves that might knock back their own promotion prospects. Both the Temporary Chief Constable and the Ass Chief Constable in this particular force had previously headed up their PSD.

In that situation, what sort of service will they - can they - provide to the public?

 

[odd jim]

The appointed investigator in this case is an elderly gentleman, late 60's I'd guess. He has "Retired Custody Sgt or retired desk officer" written all over him. PSD investigations are a wonderful job for people like that, no time pressures, no dangers, no shift work, no (positive) targets to meet, just income on top of his pension. From what I've heard, that's typical.

And the people who actually run these departments tend to be high flyers who, I'm guessing, don't want to make waves that might knock back their own promotion prospects. Both the Temporary Chief Constable and the Ass Chief Constable in this particular force had previously headed up their PSD.

In that situation, what sort of service will they - can they - provide to the public?

The retired officers are just civvy workers who do the running around, ie taking statements etc, generally the officer in charge of the investigation (who will be the "investigator) will be a detective sergeant at the very least.

 

[big soft moose]

Yes, the police are still holding onto his guns and rifles, this is causing massive financial problems. Since his arrest last August, he has earned between £5-6000. And the police refusal to release his property is illegal. Prior to 20/12/12 they had the legal right to hold on to the one gun that was used in the incident, but no right to hold onto any of the others, and no right even to hold onto that one since then. He wanted them passed to me, they refused even though I have the lawful authority needed for them. If I had them I would have been able to do (a limited) amount of pest control work for him. Obviously I have my own rifles, but they are not conditioned for foxes so I need to use his .243 for that.

And in January, he was libelled on radio. It was said that he had placed the public in danger, that was a downright lie, a senior police officer says that it was a misunderstanding. Since then, he has lost his reputation and can't get any work.

If anyone wants to read the whole story, it's on www.farmerbill.info
Obviously that's just his/mine version of events, but if any of the people named on there feel that they have been libelled, they can sue me. I'm worth suing.

The current situation is that I have today written to the Police & Crime Commissioner and have basically given her 7 days to respond.

He's my son. He saved his mother's life, I have a duty to save his reputation and protect his income.

My apologies gary - i hadnt read that info when i posted above.

that said , my feeling is that what route you take depends on what outcome you want

If getting a public apology plus having the guns returned (and presumably the right to hold them) is the priority- then courts may be the way to go (always assuming you win - which could be a big if depending on whether they believe the police's version or your own)

however a long drawn out court fight with this continually in the news and in the public eye will not 'restore his reputation' - in fact by giving top billing to the story over and over again it will be more likely to damage it further - and even if he is vindicated in court how many people will remember the verdict vs the number of people say " Bill edwards, oh yeah hes that guy who shot at that transit van" - and if the court finds against him he'll have suffered further reputational harm for no gain

If reputation is the priority therefore it would make more sense to go through a quiet out of the media eye complaint/appeal process and keep his head down - without a media splash six months hence there'll be another top bit of gossip floating arround and no one who matters will remember the case

 

[Steep]

I think his sons reputation is key to his earning a living. Who's going to hire a person (to use a gun in pest control) who is known to be careless/dangerous/gun happy? This isn't going to go away if they stay silent and just accept the status quo.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think his sons reputation is key to his earning a living. Who's going to hire a person (to use a gun in pest control) who is known to be careless/dangerous/gun happy? This isn't going to go away if they stay silent and just accept the status quo.

I haven't read all of this thread but I think it does probably come down to this.

He used a gun which is licenced for use for a legitimate purpose for self defence - which is not what it is licenced for.

I'm not suggesting that I would do anything differently in the same situation but that is not what the gun is owned for.


Steve.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Steve, I take your point, but to be pendantic...
S.2 firearms (shotguns that are not classed as S.1) are not conditioned for anything. The holder can use them for any legitimate purpose, there are no specific restrictions.
S.1 firearms (basically rifles) are conditioned for specific purposes, e.g. target shooting at approved ranges, foxes and vermin. But, in an emergency situation, even the most puny of rifles, a .22, can be used for another purpose, for the humane destruction of an injured animal - if that's all that's available, it's OK to use what's available.

There can be no greater emergency than saving the life of a defenceless human being, already injured and down, who is being attacked again, so conditions wouldn't come into it even if there were any.

I believe - and this is just guesswork - that some police simply don't like members of the public being allowed to have guns in the first place. He used a gun because it was all that was available to him at that time, and it was available because it's normal practice to carry with him when he's on his own land. A shotgun is a very poor defence against a transit van, but it's all that he had.

If he had happened to be sitting in his Land Rover at the time he could have rammed the van, that would have been more effective. If he had happened to be sitting in his loader tractor at the time he could have rammed the van, put the spike through it and lifted it 15' into the air - which would have been much more dangerous to the driver, and much more effective, but I don't believe that he would have had any police problems at all if he had been able to do that.

It's in a way similar to the case of the couple in Leicestershire, a few days after this incident. The man shot two burglars with his wife's shotgun. He didn't even have a certificate himself, but his actions were legal because they were necessary.

The difference, in that case, is that it was different police officers.

 

[odd jim]

Steve, I take your point, but to be pendantic...
S.2 firearms (shotguns that are not classed as S.1) are not conditioned for anything. The holder can use them for any legitimate purpose, there are no specific restrictions.
S.1 firearms (basically rifles) are conditioned for specific purposes, e.g. target shooting at approved ranges, foxes and vermin. But, in an emergency situation, even the most puny of rifles, a .22, can be used for another purpose, for the humane destruction of an injured animal - if that's all that's available, it's OK to use what's available.

There can be no greater emergency than saving the life of a defenceless human being, already injured and down, who is being attacked again, so conditions wouldn't come into it even if there were any.

I believe - and this is just guesswork - that some police simply don't like members of the public being allowed to have guns in the first place. He used a gun because it was all that was available to him at that time, and it was available because it's normal practice to carry with him when he's on his own land. A shotgun is a very poor defence against a transit van, but it's all that he had.

If he had happened to be sitting in his Land Rover at the time he could have rammed the van, that would have been more effective. If he had happened to be sitting in his loader tractor at the time he could have rammed the van, put the spike through it and lifted it 15' into the air - which would have been much more dangerous to the driver, and much more effective, but I don't believe that he would have had any police problems at all if he had been able to do that.

It's in a way similar to the case of the couple in Leicestershire, a few days after this incident. The man shot two burglars with his wife's shotgun. He didn't even have a certificate himself, but his actions were legal because they were necessary.

The difference, in that case, is that it was different police officers.

There's slightly more to it than that.

The Leicestershire case was different because it was in their home, and that's key here. If you look at Home Office guidelines in the use of reasonable force (in this case, lethal force) the test relates to the *home*. As soon as they leave the 'home' you must stop using whatever force you deem necessary - and that includes your garden. Once they leave the home, the level of force requires a much tougher test for the justification of use of force, and the level of force used especially if it might be seen to be disproportionate.

The official guidance for police and courts;

> Homeowners cannot rely on the new defence if they find an intruder in their garden or chase them outside – the fight must take place indoors.

> Shopkeepers can only get away with disproportionate attacks on robbers if they live above their shop, and only if the two parts of the building are connected.

> Shop assistants and customers cannot get involved in the violence, unless their loved ones happen to be living in the store.

> Householders cannot use the defence if they are only trying to protect their property, rather than trying to defend themselves or their family.

Not that I'm saying Bill was using disproportionate force, but in the Leicestershire case they were deemed to be, and of course weren't charged. And there lies the irony!

 

[Garry Edwards]

Up to a point, you're right (although lethal force wasn't used in the Leicestershire case, but that isn't relevant). But that's not the issue here. Self defence is close to being an absolute defence (if genuine) regardless of location. Only last week, a police officer opened fire on two men in Woolwich. She was protecting the public as well as herself and her fellow officers. She acted in self defence, so her actions were legal.

OK, she was on duty - but if you, I or anyone else had taken the same action in the same circumstances it would still have been self defence.

The need for Bill to have acted as he did has never been seriously questioned, once the police had the full facts. Bill was protecting his mother from further attack but his actions would have been just as necessary and proportionate if the victim was someone unknown to him.

In this case, he had to use force because his mother was down and couldn't get away from the attacker, therefore he had to stop the attacker getting to her. Eventually, the CPS issued the following statement, which I understand is a pretty unusual thing for them to do.

“I have decided not to prosecute either suspect, Bill Edwards and his mother, people are entitled to use reasonable force in self defence to defend themselves, their family and their property. The evidence I have seen does not weigh against the claim by the defendants that they were acting reasonably when the shots were fired”

So, it was accepted as self defence, the fact that it didn't happen within a dwelling house made no difference.

I agree with you that

As soon as they leave the 'home' you must stop using whatever force you deem necessary - and that includes your garden.

except that I take that to mean that the danger has passed once the assailant has run off, therefore the justification for using force no longer exists. If someone attacks you in your own garden, on your front path or in the street, the need for self defence is just as strong, and therefore the justification for using (proportional) force is equally strong.

As I understand it, the statement by Justice Minister Chris Grayling, to the effect that charges would only be brought if the degree of force used was "grossly disproportionate" - he gave an example of grossly disproportionate force, stabbing a burglar who was already unconcious - has now been watered down in the sense that a much higher level of force is now said to be justified only in the home and other specific places, but that doesn't in any way change the fact that proportionate force can be used in other situations.