The idea for this blog was
sparked by Cara’s blog of last week. The
debate about self defence, the right to protect your property against threat/perceived
threat has been raging on for a long time now so I thought you might be
interested in this case.
The story, at first glance is simple. At the age 35 Anthony Martin
inherited a remote farmhouse from his uncle. In 1999 Martin ( then 55) shot dead
an intruder. He claimed he had been burgled ten times before at a financial
cost of over £6000. He had complained at length about the theft and the lack of
police action so he armed himself with a pump action shotgun and on the night
of 20th August 1999 the inevitable happened.
Tony Martin
Tony Martin
Brendon Fearon (29) and Fred
Barras (16) broke into the property. Martin claims he woke up at the sound of a
window being broken and discharged his birdshot loaded shotgun. He said he was
shooting in the pitch dark and down the stairwell, the weapon was discharged three
times, once when the intruders were on the stairwell and twice more as they
tried to get out the window of a downstairs room. Both received gunshot wounds
to the legs but Barras was also fatally shot in the back. He died at the scene.
So far it is tragic, but deeper investigation suggests that
something else might have been going on.
Fred Barras
The police are not
sure that the farmhouse had been burgled so many times. Martin’s gun was
illegal. He had had his licence revoked in 1994 after he caught a man scrumping
for apples, chased him and shot a hole in the back of his car. Forensic tests
show that Martin could not have been on the stairs shooting downwards, but that
he was standing on the level in the doorway already downstairs when he fired
the shots. The prosecution suggested he was lying in wait for the burglars and
opened fire for retribution for previous break-ins at his house.
On 10 January 2000,
Fearon and Darren Bark ( the 33 year old
getaway driver )admitted to conspiracy to burgle. Fearon was sentenced to 36
months in prison, and Bark to 30 months (with an
additional 12 months arising from previous offences). Fearon was released on 10
August 2001.
Fred Barras, the dead
youth, aged 16, had already a lengthy criminal record, arrested 29 times.
Then on 23rd August
1999, Martin was charged with the murder of Barras and the attempted
murder of Fearon. I think it is fair to say there was a groundswell of public
support for him at that time.
Fearon
Fearon
Self defence in English
law permits one person to kill another only if the person uses no more than
"reasonable force". The jury has to decide whether or not an
unreasonable amount of force was used. The jury can return a manslaughter verdict if they think
the accused "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm".
Which brings into question what Martin’s mind set actually was. If the
intruders were already fleeing – that is not self defence. Martin was found
Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority and was sentenced to life,
with a recommended minimum term to serve of 9 years.
He appealed and his
appeal was considered in October 2001. They argued that Martin had fired in his
own defence but that was rejected by the Appeal Court. They also submitted
evidence that Martin was suffering from paranoid personality disorder and depression.
He was paranoid about anyone intruding into his home. This submission was
accepted by the Court of Appeal and the murder conviction was replaced by
manslaughter (5 years) and the sentence for wounding Fearon was reduced from
ten years to three years. These sentences were concurrent.
Then the
story takes another twist. Martin was eligible for parole in January 2003 but the Parole
Board rejected his application stating that Martin was "a very dangerous man"
who may still believe his action had been right.
Martin appealed to
the High Court but the decision was upheld. They feared that in the same
situation he would do the same thing again. On 28 July 2003, Martin was
released after serving three years of his five-year sentence, the maximum
period for which he could be held following good behaviour.
And what of the
intruders? In 2003, Fearon received, an estimated £5,000 of legal aid to sue
Martin for loss of earnings due to the injuries he had sustained. Then he was photographed
cycling and climbing with ease so the argument was that Fearon had been exaggerating
his injuries. While that case was pending, Fearon was recalled to jail
after being charged with the theft of a vehicle while on probation on a
conviction for dealing heroin. Nice guy. Fearon later dropped the case
when Martin agreed to drop a counter-claim.
By now tens of
thousands of pounds of public money had been spent on the case. Reports then
appeared that a £60 000 bounty had been placed on Martin's head by Fearon and
friends of Barras. In October 2003, a
tabloid paid Martin
£125,000 for an exclusive interview on his
release from prison. The Press
Complaints commission ruled the payment was justified and in the public
interest because Martin "had a unique insight into an issue of great
public concern".
The bit that is
unsettling is that on his release Martin appeared on the platform of UKIP (the UK independence party) as the
guest-of-honour. Martin said himself that he had attended meetings of the National
Front in Norfolk, and later went on to endorse the British National Party.
Fearon and Barras
were of Romany blood.
It does raise the question, does the perception of the threat vary with the prejudices of the 'victim'? And is that a defence? One would hope not.
Caro GB 27th September 2013
In the United States the self-defense plea varies from state to state, running from no need to retreat to no lethal force unless you're practically certain you will die if you don't. Florida's recent "Trayvon Martin" case is the most recent example of just how broad it can be in some jurisdictions. As for your penultimate sentence, I'm afraid that does play a part in far too many folks' thinking. Everywhere.
ReplyDeleteWho says, "Crime doesn't pay?"
ReplyDeleteAs for self-defense, when an attacker turns and runs away, it's no longer self-defense, it's revenge. But 'justice' is just a word, and it's rarely just. Which is probably why so many people enjoy reading books where the bad guys usually get their just desserts...