Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Subscribe now for unlimited access
Has it really come to this? Will elections of the future really be decided on how much violence we are prepared to countenance against criminals? Chris Grayling’s keynote speech at the Conservative Party Conference will today propose a change to the law on self-defence against burglars, to allow ‘disproportionate’ force to be used. The ‘hang em and flog em’ brigade will lap it up here in Birmingham, taking it as a sign that the Tories are finally taking charge of law and order and that brief, liberal nightmare of Ken Clarke’s time at the Ministry of Justice is now a distant memory. But this is political opportunism of the worst kind – panicked, dangerous and counter-productive politics, with policies thought up on a whim for the sake of a few middle England votes. For a start, it doesn’t make sense. If a disproportionate action is deemed acceptable, then surely it is no longer disproportionate? Otherwise what’s the use of the term in the first place? For David Cameron to claim, as he told the BBC this morning, that there has been ‘uncertainty’ about what people are allowed to do when a burglar comes into their home is staggering. Because if there is a problem with the current wording of the laws, that’s his fault. The current law was set by his own government just a few months ago when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act came into force. Check it out for yourself under section 148, rather incongruously crowbarred into the legislation. It clearly states that ‘”reasonable force” is acceptable in the common law defence of defence of property’. This is the government’s own work, yet within months they deem their own laws to be unacceptable. What changed in the meantime? Did they suddenly realise there was political capital in bashing burglars? A couple of high-profile cases and they sense a chance to appease the masses. It’s policy decided by the polls and Grayling should be ashamed. Does this proposal really clarify how much force can be used against intruders? Is ‘grossly disproportionate’ (the new tipping point for potential prosecution) easier to understand than simply ‘disproportionate’? Is it not possible this will confuse the public – and the courts even further about what is acceptable? The lord chief justice was pretty clear that the law provides adequate protection to the householder when he spoke during his annual press conference last month. Reasonable force already took account, he said, of the panic and anxiety of the householder and the courts would respond accordingly. There really is no justification for any change in the law. And so to the consequences. Burglars will inevitably get hurt. I don’t expect many hearts to bleed at that prospect (though do consider that roughly 30% of prisoners grew up in care homes, compared with 1% of the rest of the population – there must be some room for compassion). But what kind of Britain do we want to create? Do we really want one where householders are encouraged to use violence? In Florida in February this year, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was fatally shot by a resident who had earlier told police Martin was acting suspiciously. The case raised questions about Florida’s ‘stand-your-ground’ law which states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defence when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat. Critics say the law gives the green light to people to shoot others first and then claim self-defence afterwards. A taskforce examining the law said it was ‘confusing’ for homeowners. There is still some distance before Grayling arrives at something similar in England and Wales, but the law is changing at such a rate that you wouldn’t rule it out. And let’s not pretend this will reduce the frequency of burglaries – indeed this only means the chilling prospect of intruders arming themselves in their own self-defence before entering someone’s home. Of course, it is terrifying being burgled and the law has a duty to punish the offender. But placing that duty on householders is a dangerous and frightening prospect. There is a very good chance that Grayling’s law will turn an ordinary person into a killer. Even if the law deems that they are immune from prosecution, is that really the kind of society we want to live in? Follow John on Twitter Join our LinkedIn Legal Aid sub-group
Slater and Gordon’s move to new ownership is likely to be confirmed before Christmas after shareholders approved restructuring plans today.Around 70% of shareholders voted in favour of a consolidation that will effectively leave them with a fraction of their present holding. The poll was held at this week’s annual general meeting in Melbourne, Australia.New equity will be issued to lenders, effectively transferring ownership of the UK business to New York hedge fund Anchorage Capital Group. The date for legally separating the UK and Australian business will follow a court hearing in Australia next week, and bosses expect the transfer to be complete before Christmas.In a notice sent to staff this morning, seen by the Gazette, the company reports that the new shareholders’ interests are ‘entirely aligned’ with the firm’s, and this change will position the UK business for ‘enduring success’.In a press statement, UK chief executive Ken Fowlie (pictured) said this is a ‘good day for our business’. He added: ‘We’ve secured the support of shareholders and senior lenders, who believe the company has a bright future – both in the UK and Australia.’The formal completion of the recapitalisation and separation process will mean the businesses in the UK and Australia will be best placed and more flexible to evolve to meet our respective clients,’ need for world class legal services.“The legal industry is facing many challenges but also great opportunities. However, we are confident that, with significantly reduced debt and our dedicated colleagues, Slater and Gordon is positioned to thrive in a dynamic market.’The firm is already in the process of closing four relatively small offices at Milton Keynes, Chester, Wrexham and Preston and has lost a 33-strong team to top 20 firm BLM.The approval of plans by shareholders, described by one Australian publication as a ‘vote for mercy’, means the UK company’s debts are effectively written off.Speaking at the AGM, chairman John Skippen said the proposal was the only way to keep the business solvent. He told attendees the outcome was bound to be ‘disappointing’ for shareholders but added that recapitalisation provided the ‘only opportunity to secure the future of the firm and its workforce’.