Here are some questions:
- Why the political commentary and UKIP’s seeming silence?
- Did the public outcry and petitions affect the decision not to prosecute this case?
- Is the public confidence in Police and CPS to act sensibly sinking?
- Will there be compensation for Richard Osborn-Brooks?
- Should police resources need to be focussed on burglaries rather than the internet?
At least three prominent Conservatives have spoken on Hither Green: Sir Christopher Chope, former vice chair Conservative Party; Bob Neill, Conservative Chairman of the Commons Justice Select Committee and David Michael Gauke, Conservative MP, Lord High Chancellor.
The Conservatives, conscious of the May local elections are covering all the bases with careful press releases.
Sir Christopher Chope Conservative MP said it was “completely unwarranted” to arrest people in circumstances faced by Richard Osborn-Brooks.
Chairman of the Commons Justice Select Committee Bob Neill praised the police for their expediency in releasing Mr Osborn-Brooks:
“It is sensible and the right result, but actually not very surprising, as the law clearly permits the reasonable use of force in self-defence (and in defence of others – such as his wife) in this sort of case.”
David Gauke made clear that the Government stands with the homeowners who try to defend themselves during burglaries:
“Our sympathies are with householders who have to defend themselves when intruders break in. That’s why we strengthened the law in 2013 to give householders greater protection from intruders.”
Many members of the public were outraged that Mr Osborn-Brooks was arrested for murder and signed petitions.
The police defended the decision to make the arrest for his own protection, to ensure he was interviewed under PACE, to access the property and undertake forensic tests.
Detective Chief Inspector Simon Harding stressed there had been a “thorough investigation” into the circumstances of Vincent’s death. He said:
“it was important that the resident was interviewed by officers under the appropriate legislation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; not only for the integrity of our investigation but also so that his personal and legal rights were protected.”
So is all fine between UK justice and Richard Osborn-Brooks?
- He was arrested for murder.
- He was taken away in handcuffs.
- He was detained in custody at the police station
- He was separated from his wife. He is the primary carer for his wife.
- He has been bailed to appear at the police station in a months time.
- There will be a formal public inquest.
- His home has been subject to forensics and a police search
- He has had his picture plastered over the media and press.
- He now needs protection from the Vincent crime family and their “community”
- Mr Vincent’s family facebook made comments like ” Old Bxxxards deserve it !”
Whatever the Conservative politicians say, their current legislation is failing to protect the homeowner following a traumatic burglar injury incident.
Would you prefer to have injured, maimed or killed a burglar in Hither Green UK or Texas USA, a ‘Strong Castle Doctrine’ state?
Politics, money and state control mixing with justice is weakening public confidence with the police and the CPS.
The cases of Dennis Hutchings demonstrates politics affects justice:
“Broken British army major cleared seven times faces new Iraq probe”
Decorated officer Robert Campbell says soldiers are treated as ‘political fodder’
Some of the cases against Iraq veterans were from law firms chasing money.
Cameron wants crackdown on ‘spurious’ military legal claims
Evidence in support of defendants withheld by police:
In December, the case against Liam Allan, 22, was thrown out after it emerged police had failed to hand over text messages from a woman that proved he was innocent.
The police arresting thousands of people for online speech infringements undermines public confidence in the police.
“These figures bear out what we’ve been saying: that police are wasting more and more time investigating people for comments online that are offensive but not criminal,” Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive of Index on Censorship, told the Times.
What if the homeowner was a member of Britain First rather than a retired manager for the RAC? What if the deceased burglar was a from a minority and a campaign like “Black Lives Matter” became involved?
What if the homeowners were younger, physically strong: would there be less public outrage and petitions to force the Police and CPS’ hand in their favour?
In today’s pc environment justice can be hijacked.
Police are sometimes viewed as wanting to make an easy arrest, ie the homeowner, whilst failing to tackle burglars. Hither Green suffered multiple burglaries. Mr Vincent was already wanted by the police after a distraction burglary in Kent last November.
The reality is that burglars have no mercy on the elderly, do cause serious injuries and in certain instances deal death to their victims:
- Man arrested after D-Day veteran, 96, seriously hurt in ‘claw hammer’ attack in his home.
- Paul Kohler beaten to a pulp by four masked men inside his £2 million London home.
Surely any person finding a stranger on their premises is entitled to take pre-emptive measures.
How is anyone at home to know what burglars will do? Why must the homeowner prove they were in fear of their life to legally defend themselves? Why must the homeowner be expected to act rationally when thrown into shock and turmoil during a burglary with adrenaline kicking in?
Victims are not trained for these situations. Criminals make a career of it. Why is it expected that victims use proportionate force? A live burglary is not the time for a family to hold an ethics committee meeting and debate reasonable force responses.
Richard Osborn-Brooks and his wife Maureen deserve substantial compensation from public funds. First it is traumatic to have to kill someone. Their home is now wrecked, unsafe and presumably lost some value. The deceased burglar’s family and “community” could well seek revenge. The couple will need protection, support and possibly a house move.
UKIP is seemingly silent – where is the commentary from UKIP?
UKIP should campaign for a “Strong Castle Doctrine”!