IT IS about time that the law protecting people who intervene in criminal situations is reviewed.

Justice secretary Jack Straw was announcing today that self-defence laws need to be looked at again to ensure that have-a-go home owners have the law on their side.

This has always been a controversial point with many seeing the law protecting the criminals rather than the victims who take steps to protect themselves.

What will have to change if members of the public can feel confident in tackling burglars who invade their home or street robbers or before they get involved in any other incident, is the definition of 'reasonable force".

In our view reasonable force currently implies hand to hand combat.

But how many people facing an intruder would feel confident in tackling a criminal with no respect for their property of their safety without the aid of a weapon.

Anyone faced with such a threat would simply grab the nearest implement to use as a weapon, whatever it is.

This must be seen as a reasonable action.

When anyone is being terrified in their own home by an intruder who after all should not be there, they should be able to defend themselves and their property without fear of prosecution.

For too long the law has seemed to side with the criminal rather than the victim.

Jack Straw's review, prompted by his own personal experience, should change that. If it does not then it will have failed.