Jumping the gun

William Hague is wrong to call for a review of the law on self-defence following the case of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, writes Stephen Wedd

There has been a real rumpus over the recent events in Norfolk.

Farmer Tony Martin shot into the media spotlight when he took self-help down to a new level with the help of an unlicensed shotgun.

Might the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the break-in by Fred Barras and then his shooting at Martin's farm lead to a change in the English criminal law? And indeed, should they?Occasionally a case is made so sensational by the press that journalists and the public cannot seem to get enough of the details.

But should such cases be allowed to change English law? Do we need review of the legislation on self-defence, as the leader of the opposition, William Hague, maintains, or can we safely leave it to the basic common sense of the standard Crown Court jury to decide in the light of prevailing standards?In my view, the law on self-defence works as it is.

There are ample commissions (royal); councils (Criminal Justice Consultative); committees (liaison); and groups (ginger) that will push for change, without the home secretary getting involved.

Let some of the laws already enacted be put into force before clogging up the statute book with more legislation.It seems that Tony Martin had tried everything else.

He paid his council tax, which should have bought him the immediate services of Norfolk police when he was burgled.

But he claimed that that had not been the case, so he put mantraps on the stairs and armed himself with a shotgun to discourage visitors.

He would have been better off putting up signs reading: 'Trespassers will be shot'.Martin knew that the government wanted the nation's farmers to diversify, but into a make-work scheme for the nation's lawyers? What was he to do? In his view, he had tried every other option.

So reluctantly, on detecting intruders, he shot young Fred dead.And of course, there was mawkishness on that side as well.

Fred the serial thief was almost canonised by family and friends.

He meant no wrong; he's only a harmless burglar, they pleaded.

There was no remission for Fred on this one, they pointed out, just full time.English justice first granted bail to the defendant, presumably on the basis that he was a risk only to those who invited themselves into his house.

However, the innocent burgher of Norfolk had to hide in his turn from those who would do for him for doing for Fred.

He could not even go home to secure the premises he had so jealously guarded.

How could it be that just for murdering an unarmed intruder he had to go through such indignity?English justice then convicted Tony Martin since he had broken the law by shooting someone who was not threatening him with the same degree of force.

How simple do lawyers have to make it?The law on self-defence is clear and adequate.

It takes the action of an instant and dissects its minutiae to establish whether what the person did was legal.

It is not rocket science, particularly since any judge will take a case away from a jury if the Crown cannot make it by half time.

It is simple, almost Biblical.

The old sayings cover it well - 'an eye for an eye', balanced by 'two wrongs don't make a right'.It does not matter that the average farmer on the Norfolk omnibus (if rural omnibus services had not been removed, like most of the county's policing) does not know the law.

That excuse has never helped anyone.

If he goes too far then there is a price to pay.

Anarchy results from everyone taking the law into their own hands just because they do not like burglars, or people who look like burglars, or, perhaps, their lawyers, and others who represent them.The law makes reasonable men and women out of all of us.

The level has to be set somewhere.

It has been a difficult lesson for Tony Martin to learn, but it is a crucial one for a civilised society to maintain.Stephen Wedd is a partner at Brighton law firm Wedd Daniel and a member of the Law Society's criminal law committee