Shot Burglar Wins Right To Sue

[Detlef]

From BBC online, Friday, 13 June, 2003, 11:23 GMT 12:23 UK

Shot burglar wins right to sue Martin

Brendon Fearon, 33, hopes to sue Martin for a reported £15,000

Burglar Brendon Fearon who was shot and injured by Tony Martin has won the right to sue the jailed farmer for damages.

A judge at Nottingham County Court on Friday overturned an earlier decision which threw out his claim.

Fearon, 33, hopes to sue Martin for a reported £15,000 following his wounding during a break-in at the farmer's home in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999.

Martin shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, of Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Martin, 58, is currently serving a five-year sentence for manslaughter at Highpoint Prison in Suffolk.

Tony Martin is due to leave prison in July

He was originally jailed for life after being convicted of murder but that conviction was reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

He is due to leave prison in July, after the Parole Board refused to release him on licence earlier this year.

Its decision was upheld by a High Court judge this month, when Martin attempted to seek a judicial review of the board's decision.

On Friday at Nottingham County Court, District Judge Brian Oliver said: "I conclude that it is proper I grant the relief that the claimant seeks."

He sent the case to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice and the court was told a date was likely to be set when both men were released from prison terms.

Could contravene human rights

An earlier hearing was told that Fearon, of Newark, Nottinghamshire, claimed that his injuries, which included a leg wound, had affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts.

"I have to take the view that there are important issues here that need to be determined and that it would be wrong, subject to other considerations, to deprive the claimant from airing his claim and having a full trial," said District Judge Oliver.

He said that to deny Fearon the right to his claim could contravene the burglar's rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Convention. I feel very strongly that no criminal should have any right after he has broken into a property - all legal rights should be left outside the property that was burgled.

Henry Bellingham, MP for North West Norfolk

He said that the case would be sent to the High Court because of the amount of public interest and because of the complex nature of matters to be decided.

District Judge Oliver said that the full hearing must consider what rights a householder has to protect his property and also whether a burglar can be deemed to be outside of the law.

The decision was criticised by Martin's friend Malcolm Starr.

"Brendon Fearon instigated the raid on Mr Martin," he said.

"Mr Martin did not ask for this to happen. To have a situation where he is suing Mr Martin, who is the victim in this, not Brendon Fearon, is a public outrage."

Mr Martin's MP, Tory Henry Bellingham, criticised the decision and said a change in the law was required.

Legal aid 'outrageous'

He said: "I am absolutely appalled at the decision in court by the judge that is going to allow Brendon Fearon to pursue his case."

Mr Bellingham, who represents North West Norfolk, added: "I feel very strongly that no criminal should have any right after he has broken into a property - all legal rights should be left outside the property that was burgled.

"It is outrageous that a convicted burglar should get legal aid to pursue a civil case.

He added: "I have written to the new Cabinet Minister Lord Falconer because we need a change in the law."

[Jeeper]

That poor theif. We are people going to learn that we need to watch out for burglars wellbeing!!! They have rights too! Think of the children!!! (alright I'm done)

[EricW]

Should this be surprising in the country that has made self-defense in all its forms, illegal? What a pathetic place.

[Ironman]

It makes me feel a little better that this was not a report from my home state of Kalifornia. There is a lesson to be learned from this report... but I won't go there.

Jim

[crazyaboutguns]

The English faced down the worst, most powerful tyrant in modern history, Adolf Hitler. How did they come to

their current views about morally justifiable use of deadly force? I do not know the answer, but understanding

what factors led them so far from their 1940's salvation could be instructive to all nations and individuals.

[George D]

I think it has to do with lawyers, politicians and the independence of the judiciary. In Australia the Prime Minister has said that no-one has the right to have a gun for purposes of self defence.......except, of course, his personal bodyguards.

[SiG Lady]

The word "OUTRAGE" is the only one I can think of that even begins to cover my opinion here...

[Duane Thomas]

The English faced down the worst, most powerful tyrant in modern history, Adolf Hitler. How did they come to their current views about morally justifiable use of deadly force? I do not know the answer, but understanding what factors led them so far from their 1940's salvation could be instructive to all nations and individuals.

It's puzzling. Though in the US we tend to have this impression - developed mostly from TV and movies - of the veddy civilized British, traditionally the Brits have been a very warlike people. They didn't create a world spanning empire by being nice guys. The only term I can think of to describe their current situation is "over-domesticated."

[George D]

The only term I can think of to describe their current situation is "over-domesticated."

Good word Duane. My grandfather fought in WW1 in the Australian Lighthorse and my father and uncle in WW2 in the Air Force. They valued self reliance and survival skills but the alternate lifestyle minority seems to have gained ascendancy in government to the point where these values have to be "controlled". Yeah, "over-domesticated" - good word.

[BDH]

I was in NYC early this week, and heard a local newscast that went something like this.....

'XXX was convicted today of owning an un-registered firearm, and will be sentenced to X years/months (I can't remember which) in jail.'

The deal was that in the middle of the night, the homeowner was awakened by one of his kids screaming.... he went to investigate, and found an intruder in one of his kids rooms. Well, he protected his family and shot the bastard. It turned out that the intruder was a career criminal and had a rap sheet 14 pages long!! Sure enough the police show up, and find that the gun was un-registered, so they arrest the homeowner.

Also, if I remember correctly, it turns out that the guy going to jail was a Navy 'weapons specialist' or something similar, and now he is going to the same jail where they should have kept the bastard he shot locked up......

I just don't understand this thinking. Doesn't common sense ever come into play anymore?

Also, anyone with firm details on this, feel free to correct my post.

[ErikW]

Station #1: "Crossing Burglars"

Report Pair

Control: High-Low

He probably had #8 or something in an Improved Cylinder. Upon hearing the first shot and seeing his partner turn into a Dead Bird, the second burglar probably ran out of effective range.