Home Defence Bill

Overheal

Quick question, was this bill ratified and is it in effect:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2010/4210/B4210D.pdf

source

According to Oireachtas.ie it's still at committee stage and hasn't been enacted.

johnnyskeleton

I think, and am not 100% on this, any bill that has not been passed at the end of a Dail session i.e. when the Taoiseach dissolved the 30th dail earlier this year, is no longer before the Oireachtas and has to be brought again.

To be honest, I can't see any subtantial difference between what is in that bill and the common law position as set out in DPP v Barnes.

source

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think, and am not 100% on this, any bill that has not been passed at the end of a Dail session i.e. when the Taoiseach dissolved the 30th dail earlier this year, is no longer before the Oireachtas and has to be brought again.

To be honest, I can't see any subtantial difference between what is in that bill and the common law position as set out in DPP v Barnes.

Correct, but in the link I put up, Says it was reinstated on 23 March this year so it's back on the books.

Overheal

Good luck with it. It sounds needed.

johnnyskeleton

Overheal wrote: »

Good luck with it. It sounds needed.

Why does it sound needed to you?

It doesn't change the law significantly because allowing someone to defend their property must be balanced against permitting people to shoot on sight anyone in their property and claim that it was self defence. So it is back to the position as set out in DPP v Barnes that invading a home is an act of aggression, that you don't have to leave your own home if it would be unreasonable, and the amount of force you use must be reasonable in the circumstances. I don't see anything in that bill that changes it in any way.

It's politics for the guns and hanging brigade who don't want to know what the law actually is, persist in believeing that their own skewed view of law is true, and then getting angry about their own false view of the law.

There was a thread here a while back where Zambia (I think) was looking for any actual examples of people being prosecuted or sued when their home was invaded, and no-one could come up with any examples.

coylemj

I agree, I can't see why there is a need for legislation in this area. In many ways this issue is driven by opposition politicians looking to be perceived as hard on crime and by reactionary tabloids like the Daily Mail that like to invent issues and generally stir up controversy so that they can appoint themselves as the campaigner on behalf of the 'ordinary guy' who can't see how he is being manipulated in a circulation war.

No matter what they put into legislation, it still depends on a jury to convict someone who is judged by the DPP to have strayed across the line and nobody can predict how a jury will respond to a specific set of circumstances. The farmer in Co. Mayo who shot the traveller guy was convicted by a Co. Mayo jury but when the case was moved to Dublin he was acquitted!

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

I agree, I can't see why there is a need for legislation in this area. In many ways this issue is driven by opposition politicians looking to be perceived as hard on crime and by reactionary tabloids like the Daily Mail that like to invent issues and generally stir up controversy so that they can appoint themselves as the campaigner on behalf of the 'ordinary guy' who can't see how he is being manipulated in a circulation war.

Exactly. It's like the puppies and kittens bill, 2011. You're not against puppies and kittens, are you?

Overheal

Not talking about shooting people, but in general I keep reading the odd bit here and there especially in PI, people who are scared to death of their neighbors, or vagrant kids, and they don't even know what their rights are to defend themselves or their property. I thought thats what this law/bill intended to spell out.

johnnyskeleton

Overheal wrote: »

Not talking about shooting people, but in general I keep reading the odd bit here and there especially in PI, people who are scared to death of their neighbors, or vagrant kids, and they don't even know what their rights are to defend themselves or their property. I thought thats what this law/bill intended to spell out.

Laws should not be passed because people are too lazy to find out what the law actually is. It really takes two seconds on google for anyone interested to find out, or if they are really that concerned they can speak to a garda/solicitor/flac or whatever. Or how about go to the library?

If the law is necessary for that purpose, really it suggests that they either have a skewed view of the law as it stands or (perhaps more worryingly) believe that this new bill allows them to shoot first ask questions later.

Next you'll be wanting legislation enacted so that people knowto put their socks on before their shoes and remeber to turn the gas off before leaving the house.

Manach

Your viewpoint is rather simplistic. In Roman times it was possible to erect the basic laws of the state for all, hardly possible in this modern society especially two seconds via google. Home invasion is an emotive issue, and there are issues with regard to mistaken use of lethal excessive force in such a situations, which to me as a part-time law student, I'd confess to having difficults with.

johnnyskeleton

Manach wrote: »

Home invasion is an emotive issue, and there are issues with regard to mistaken use of lethal excessive force in such a situations, which to me as a part-time law student, I'd confess to having difficults with.

And does this bill clarify those issues by replacing the test of "reasonable force" with...."reasonable force"?

detective

I don't have huge knowledge in this area but does the Barnes/Nally cases protect you more against criminal prosecution rather than a civil suit? Are homeowners protected in a civil sense also as the law currently stands?