Have-a-go Abergavenny man ‘should never have gone on trial’ - MP

South Wales Argus: 'TRIAL A WASTE OF TIME': Monmouth MP David Davies 'TRIAL A WASTE OF TIME': Monmouth MP David Davies

A TORY MP says that Andrew Woodhouse case should never have gone to trial.

Monmouth MP David Davies said a “great British jury has delivered justice” and says it shows the law on self-defence hasn’t been written up properly.

But the Crown Prosecution Service has defended its decision to charge Mr Woodhouse, saying it had been satisfied the case was in the public interest.

Gwent Police said it was a difficult investigation.

Mr Woodhouse was found not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm by a jury at Cardiff Crown Court on Wednesday.

He had chased Kevin Green, 53, on March 26 last year after Mr Green stole diesel from Mr Woodhouse’s Abergavenny Tyres business, and left him with two broken legs and a broken forearm.

Mr Davies said he was delighted with the verdict, calling it common sense.

He said: “This was justice and the right decision.

“Mr Woodhouse was defending his property and business from people that had no right to be there.

“I don’t think it should have been brought to trial. I think the police were probably put into a position where they were told that they didn’t have much choice. I was very surprised that the CPS brought it forward.”

He said the whole thing had been a waste of court time.

“It does suggest to me that the law hasn’t been written up properly in favour of householders and people that want to protect their businesses.

“In this instance it hasn’t been written strongly enough to protect an innocent business owner.”

A CPS spokesman said: “Andrew Woodhouse was charged with grievous bodily harm with intent after careful consideration of all the available evidence. Our decision to charge Mr Woodhouse was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which requires us to be satisfied that that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and that it is in the public interest to bring charges.

“In light of the evidence, including the injuries suffered by one of the intruders, it was the prosecution case that Mr Woodhouse’s actions during the incident went beyond what the law allows for in terms of self-defence. We therefore decided that it was appropriate to bring the matter to court so that a jury could determine the issue.

“Ultimately, all evidence relating to criminal cases is tested during the trial process, with the jury being the final arbiters of guilt or innocence. We respect the jury’s decision on this matter.”

A Gwent Police spokesman said: “This was a difficult investigation which following CPS advice resulted in three men being charged with various offences. We accept the decision of the court.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:07pm Thu 23 Jan 14

welshmen says...

Why didn't the Right Honourable Mr Davies put that to the CPS prior to trial....
Why didn't the Right Honourable Mr Davies put that to the CPS prior to trial.... welshmen

7:31pm Thu 23 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

i love this MP please come and be our MP not those dead legs morden and flyn
i love this MP please come and be our MP not those dead legs morden and flyn scraptheWAG

11:50pm Thu 23 Jan 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

welshmen wrote:
Why didn't the Right Honourable Mr Davies put that to the CPS prior to trial....
Because at the time it wasn't an attention grabbing oportunity.

I think it was borderline for them to take him to court, if there wasn't a case to answer then the judge would have thrown it out before it went to trial. Don't get me wrong the actions taken by Mr Woodhouse was correct and he had every right to defend his property and himself, but I think the grey area in this case was if it was self defense or not and the right decision was made by the jury. I think it was a case that needed to go to court to satisfy thouse that would complain if it didn't and ask why it didn't go to court. Yes it seems like the wrong thing to do now because it seems like a waste of money and time. If you look at some of the easy sentencing that is doled out these days it would bring the question is any crime worth the time and effort. I feel sorry for Mr Woodhouse because this case was borderline, had he hadn't chased them off his property then it would be a clear case of self defense, but having gave chase then maybe in the police and cps's mind that he had gone beyond the point of defending property etc. I am glad that he has been found not guilty and atleast he can move on knowing that he did the right thing, it's a shame that he is now probably significantly left out of pocket and no way of probably claiming any compensation. I think that this case does ask alot of questions and also highlights the issue of standing up for what is right. How many times do we see things happen and always first consider the consequences before we act to either stop someone from commiting a theft or try to help someone out who is being attacked, and just turn a blind eye because of cases like these when it doesn't seem like it's worth it. But isn't this one of the things thats wrong with society these days. The criminals are running riot because nobaody stands up to them and when they do this happens.
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Why didn't the Right Honourable Mr Davies put that to the CPS prior to trial....[/p][/quote]Because at the time it wasn't an attention grabbing oportunity. I think it was borderline for them to take him to court, if there wasn't a case to answer then the judge would have thrown it out before it went to trial. Don't get me wrong the actions taken by Mr Woodhouse was correct and he had every right to defend his property and himself, but I think the grey area in this case was if it was self defense or not and the right decision was made by the jury. I think it was a case that needed to go to court to satisfy thouse that would complain if it didn't and ask why it didn't go to court. Yes it seems like the wrong thing to do now because it seems like a waste of money and time. If you look at some of the easy sentencing that is doled out these days it would bring the question is any crime worth the time and effort. I feel sorry for Mr Woodhouse because this case was borderline, had he hadn't chased them off his property then it would be a clear case of self defense, but having gave chase then maybe in the police and cps's mind that he had gone beyond the point of defending property etc. I am glad that he has been found not guilty and atleast he can move on knowing that he did the right thing, it's a shame that he is now probably significantly left out of pocket and no way of probably claiming any compensation. I think that this case does ask alot of questions and also highlights the issue of standing up for what is right. How many times do we see things happen and always first consider the consequences before we act to either stop someone from commiting a theft or try to help someone out who is being attacked, and just turn a blind eye because of cases like these when it doesn't seem like it's worth it. But isn't this one of the things thats wrong with society these days. The criminals are running riot because nobaody stands up to them and when they do this happens. grumpyandopinionated

5:08am Fri 24 Jan 14

Anne teak says...

The case should have taken place because cases like these will start to redefine the law.

If juries continue to throw cases like this out the CPS will not think it worth bringing them and the law will eventually have to be changed.
The case should have taken place because cases like these will start to redefine the law. If juries continue to throw cases like this out the CPS will not think it worth bringing them and the law will eventually have to be changed. Anne teak

10:35am Fri 24 Jan 14

Crossbenchtory says...

The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned.

Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist.

The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were...

1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm?

2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time?

I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability.

As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument.

These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial.

I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury.

As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.
The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned. Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist. The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were... 1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm? 2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time? I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability. As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument. These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial. I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury. As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict. Crossbenchtory

11:11am Fri 24 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Crossbenchtory wrote:
The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned.

Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist.

The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were...

1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm?

2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time?

I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability.

As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument.

These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial.

I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury.

As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.
Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.
[quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned. Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist. The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were... 1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm? 2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time? I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability. As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument. These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial. I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury. As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.[/p][/quote]Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action. Llanmartinangel

11:53am Fri 24 Jan 14

Crossbenchtory says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned.

Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist.

The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were...

1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm?

2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time?

I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability.

As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument.

These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial.

I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury.

As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.
Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.
What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above.

If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be.
In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live.

We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned. Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist. The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were... 1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm? 2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time? I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability. As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument. These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial. I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury. As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.[/p][/quote]Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.[/p][/quote]What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above. If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be. In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live. We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case. Crossbenchtory

12:31pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Crossbenchtory wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned.

Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist.

The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were...

1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm?

2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time?

I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability.

As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument.

These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial.

I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury.

As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.
Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.
What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above.

If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be.
In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live.

We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case.
Not sure if that was a deliberate misconstruing of what I said or my poor delivery of it which caused a misunderstanding. Leaving aside that many people would not have necessarily had the strength or courage to defend his/her property, (he could have been 80 years old and then he'd have been a sitting duck), my point about Darwinsism is this: If you break into private property, there is a calculable risk that you will come face to face with a very agitated owner. You know that is a risk beforehand (or you are extremely stupid). Therefore the CPS should take into account where someone is the victim of their own reckless actions. Had this not happened on private property then I would have agreed that the motivations of each protagonist would need to be examined by a jury. But in this case, they knew the risk they took and came unstuck. I can think of better things to worry about than very obvious career criminals getting a hiding from a serial victim. And so should the CPS. On a separate but not unconnected note, the fact that they were fined £75 only encourages people to take the law into their own hands since they feel that for the law abiding, there is no justice.
[quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned. Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist. The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were... 1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm? 2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time? I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability. As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument. These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial. I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury. As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.[/p][/quote]Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.[/p][/quote]What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above. If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be. In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live. We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case.[/p][/quote]Not sure if that was a deliberate misconstruing of what I said or my poor delivery of it which caused a misunderstanding. Leaving aside that many people would not have necessarily had the strength or courage to defend his/her property, (he could have been 80 years old and then he'd have been a sitting duck), my point about Darwinsism is this: If you break into private property, there is a calculable risk that you will come face to face with a very agitated owner. You know that is a risk beforehand (or you are extremely stupid). Therefore the CPS should take into account where someone is the victim of their own reckless actions. Had this not happened on private property then I would have agreed that the motivations of each protagonist would need to be examined by a jury. But in this case, they knew the risk they took and came unstuck. I can think of better things to worry about than very obvious career criminals getting a hiding from a serial victim. And so should the CPS. On a separate but not unconnected note, the fact that they were fined £75 only encourages people to take the law into their own hands since they feel that for the law abiding, there is no justice. Llanmartinangel

1:16pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Crossbenchtory says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned.

Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist.

The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were...

1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm?

2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time?

I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability.

As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument.

These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial.

I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury.

As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.
Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.
What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above.

If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be.
In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live.

We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case.
Not sure if that was a deliberate misconstruing of what I said or my poor delivery of it which caused a misunderstanding. Leaving aside that many people would not have necessarily had the strength or courage to defend his/her property, (he could have been 80 years old and then he'd have been a sitting duck), my point about Darwinsism is this: If you break into private property, there is a calculable risk that you will come face to face with a very agitated owner. You know that is a risk beforehand (or you are extremely stupid). Therefore the CPS should take into account where someone is the victim of their own reckless actions. Had this not happened on private property then I would have agreed that the motivations of each protagonist would need to be examined by a jury. But in this case, they knew the risk they took and came unstuck. I can think of better things to worry about than very obvious career criminals getting a hiding from a serial victim. And so should the CPS. On a separate but not unconnected note, the fact that they were fined £75 only encourages people to take the law into their own hands since they feel that for the law abiding, there is no justice.
I absolutely agree that the sentence of a £75 fine, handed down to the thieves, was wholly inadequate and is symptomatic of why people feel the need to take matters into their own hands when confronted with these situations.

It is my understanding that at the time of the altercation, which resulted in the broken legs and arm, those involved were in fact not on private property and that, as I said earlier, Mr Woodhouse had indeed pursued the thieves. My point regarding the legal position stands.

What I have not explained earlier, and maybe I should have to avoid misunderstanding, is that, personally, I agree that these two thieves did deserve the beating they were given. Having said that, I would much prefer such beatings to be administered by a Court imposed sentence of public birching followed by a few days in a public stocks. This would send a very clear message to all petty criminals that crime not only does not pay but it results in pain and humiliation for the perpetrator.

Just to be clear, not that you have accused me of such, but I am not a lefty liberal who feels sorry for criminals. As you quite rightly point out, criminals make a risk/cost/benefit calculation prior to the commission of an offence, therefore the way to reduce crime is to increase the risk and cost of getting caught.
This could be achieved by back to basics policing, allowing coppers to do their job without the need to always keep one eye on what the media are saying or worrying about offending some minority group or another, public birching and the stocks and prison sentences that come with hard labour, rather than prisons which provide vastly superior accommodation to the Sergeants Mess I lived in at the end of my Army career.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned. Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist. The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were... 1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm? 2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time? I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability. As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument. These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial. I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury. As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.[/p][/quote]Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.[/p][/quote]What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above. If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be. In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live. We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case.[/p][/quote]Not sure if that was a deliberate misconstruing of what I said or my poor delivery of it which caused a misunderstanding. Leaving aside that many people would not have necessarily had the strength or courage to defend his/her property, (he could have been 80 years old and then he'd have been a sitting duck), my point about Darwinsism is this: If you break into private property, there is a calculable risk that you will come face to face with a very agitated owner. You know that is a risk beforehand (or you are extremely stupid). Therefore the CPS should take into account where someone is the victim of their own reckless actions. Had this not happened on private property then I would have agreed that the motivations of each protagonist would need to be examined by a jury. But in this case, they knew the risk they took and came unstuck. I can think of better things to worry about than very obvious career criminals getting a hiding from a serial victim. And so should the CPS. On a separate but not unconnected note, the fact that they were fined £75 only encourages people to take the law into their own hands since they feel that for the law abiding, there is no justice.[/p][/quote]I absolutely agree that the sentence of a £75 fine, handed down to the thieves, was wholly inadequate and is symptomatic of why people feel the need to take matters into their own hands when confronted with these situations. It is my understanding that at the time of the altercation, which resulted in the broken legs and arm, those involved were in fact not on private property and that, as I said earlier, Mr Woodhouse had indeed pursued the thieves. My point regarding the legal position stands. What I have not explained earlier, and maybe I should have to avoid misunderstanding, is that, personally, I agree that these two thieves did deserve the beating they were given. Having said that, I would much prefer such beatings to be administered by a Court imposed sentence of public birching followed by a few days in a public stocks. This would send a very clear message to all petty criminals that crime not only does not pay but it results in pain and humiliation for the perpetrator. Just to be clear, not that you have accused me of such, but I am not a lefty liberal who feels sorry for criminals. As you quite rightly point out, criminals make a risk/cost/benefit calculation prior to the commission of an offence, therefore the way to reduce crime is to increase the risk and cost of getting caught. This could be achieved by back to basics policing, allowing coppers to do their job without the need to always keep one eye on what the media are saying or worrying about offending some minority group or another, public birching and the stocks and prison sentences that come with hard labour, rather than prisons which provide vastly superior accommodation to the Sergeants Mess I lived in at the end of my Army career. Crossbenchtory

6:08pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Ollie254 says...

Crossbenchtory wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned.

Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist.

The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were...

1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm?

2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time?

I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability.

As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument.

These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial.

I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury.

As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.
Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.
What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above.

If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be.
In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live.

We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case.
If the people don't recognise the legal process as being fair, just and in keeping with their views and feelings it is then that they will take the law into their own hands. As it is the legal process is carried out on an intellectual level but it is this that results in the public not believing that justice has been done in many many cases.
[quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned. Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist. The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were... 1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm? 2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time? I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability. As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument. These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial. I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury. As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.[/p][/quote]Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.[/p][/quote]What you are proposing is a moral argument fuelled by the emotional reaction to being the victim of a crime, in this instance theft. What I was putting forward was the legal argument and from that perspective I stand by what I wrote above. If you carry your argument (it's ok because we can call it Darwinism in action) to its natural conclusion then we will have no need for the Police or the Judiciary as everyone will just sort these things out for themselves. It is but a short step from there to each individual deciding what is a punishable offence and what said punishment should be. In short the Rule of Law would completely break down and we would have anarchy, that is not a place I would wish to live. We have a Judicial process in Great Britain, one to be proud of, and this case is an example of it in action. The Crown put forward it's case against Mr Woodhouse and, after hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers (ordinary men and women) found him not guilty. This process is as it should be and is preferable to either the anarchic approach you appear to put forward or the other extreme of having a single, government appointed, Judge deciding the case.[/p][/quote]If the people don't recognise the legal process as being fair, just and in keeping with their views and feelings it is then that they will take the law into their own hands. As it is the legal process is carried out on an intellectual level but it is this that results in the public not believing that justice has been done in many many cases. Ollie254

12:07pm Sat 25 Jan 14

scraptheWAG says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Crossbenchtory wrote:
The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned.

Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist.

The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were...

1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm?

2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time?

I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability.

As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument.

These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial.

I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury.

As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.
Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.
no the socialists will say they are the most vulnerable members of our society!!
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crossbenchtory[/bold] wrote: The key point in this case is that Mr Woodhouse "chased" the offenders. This removes the self defence argument from the picture because at the material time he was not defending his property, he was seeking retribution for an offence which had already been commissioned. Without being privy to all the evidence put before the jury during the trial, this strongly suggests that a prima facie case for GBH, one of the thieves suffered 2 broken legs and a broken arm in the incident, does indeed exist. The questions faced by the jury, when deciding this case, were... 1. Did Mr Woodhouse assault Mr Green with the intent of causing him harm? 2. Was Mr Woodhouse acting in self defence or defence of his property at the material time? I would submit that battering someone with a lump of wood, as I understand was the case, shows an intention to cause bodily harm even if just by applying the principle of foreseeability. As to self defence or defence of property, as previously stated the theft had already been completed therefore there was no threat to Mr Woodhouse's property and the fact that he chased the thieves suggests that he, Mr Woodhouse, created the situation that led to Mr Green's injuries, thereby negating the self defence argument. These are prima facie arguments as, like most people, I have not heard all the arguments submitted to the court by Counsel during the trial. I believe the CPS, and I do not often find myself defending that organisation, was right to prosecute this case and have it's merits determined by a jury. As for the jury's decision, it is not for me to second guess that, they are the ones who have heard and weighed all the evidence and come to a verdict.[/p][/quote]Or, had the thieving toe-rags not been there stealing from someone who was a serial victim of crime (a huge provocation in itself), they wouldn't have come to any harm. To my mind, if I take it upon myself to break into someone's private property and the owner kicks off, then I am a victim of my own stupidity. Sometimes, as in this case, stupid low-life's get what they deserve. They had a choice and they knew what they were doing. Call it Darwinism in action.[/p][/quote]no the socialists will say they are the most vulnerable members of our society!! scraptheWAG

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree