Andy and Tracey Ferrie will not face charges over burglary

Andy and Tracey Ferrie will not face charges over burglary
  shooting in Melton Mowbray
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
PA | Posted: 05/09/2012

1) A couple who were arrested after a shooting incident during a burglary at their home will not face
criminal charges, prosecutors have announced.

2) The Crown Prosecution Service said it had made the decision not to take action against Andy and
Tracey Ferrie after a senior official visited their home in Welby, Leicestershire. In a statement released
by the CPS, Judith Walker, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for the East Midlands, said: "Looking at the
evidence, it is clear to me that Mr and Mrs Ferrie did what they believed was necessary to protect
themselves, and their home, from intruders."

3) Mr and Mrs Ferrie were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm after a legally-
owned shotgun was fired during a break-in in the early hours of Sunday. The couple were released on
police bail yesterday as police announced that two men had been charged with burgling the property
near Melton Mowbray.

4) In her statement, Ms Walker said: "As Crown Prosecutors we look at all cases on their merit and
according to the evidence in the individual case. I am satisfied that this is a case where householders,
faced with intruders in frightening circumstances, acted in reasonable self-defence. The law is clear
that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary
to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action. We have
therefore advised Leicestershire Police that Mr and Mrs Ferrie should be released from their bail as
they will not face any charges over what happened."

5) The court heard that Mr Ferrie, 35, and his 43-year-old wife went to bed at around 10.15pm on
Saturday and were woken hours later by banging and the sound of breaking glass. Sally Cook,
prosecuting, said: "It is no secret that a shotgun was fired at the property." She said Mansell, who
appeared to have his arm in a sling under a grey sweatshirt, was injured inside the property and
arrested later at hospital in Leicester.Two other men, aged 23 and 31, were arrested on suspicion of
aggravated burglary and have been released on bail pending further inquiries.

6) The arrest of Mr and Mrs Ferrie after the incident at their isolated cottage has reopened the long-
running debate about the rights of householders. Rutland and Melton MP Alan Duncan, a Government
minister, said the real crime would be if the couple were prosecuted for defending their home. He said:
"If this is a straightforward case of someone using a shotgun to defend themselves against burglars in
the dead of night, then I would hope that the police will prosecute the burglars and not my
constituents."

7) Mr Duncan said he was delighted the couple would not face further action. He said: "I stuck my
neck out in defence of my constituents on Monday. I'm delighted the CPS has seen sense and has
exonerated them. The law has worked and so has the system. The focus must be on the burglars and
not the victims. My constituents can hold their heads high."

8) Mr Duncan said he had spoken to the police about the incident. "I did speak to the police today and
impressed on them that the law would look very silly if my constituents were ever charged or
prosecuted."

9) He said their shotgun licence should not be questioned by the police as a result of the incident.

No charges over burglary shooting

VOCABULARY

Title to face charges: répondre d’accusations
burglary: cambriolage
shooting: fusillade

§1       prosecutor: procureur
Crown Prosecution Service: Ministère public
senior official: haut responsable
statement: déclaration
to release: délivrer, publier

§2      intruder: intrus

§3       grievous bodily harm: coups et blessures
shotgun: fusil
break-in: effraction
to be released on bail: être libéré sous caution
to charge sb with: accuser qq de
to burgle: cambrioler

§4       to take/ judge each case on its own merits: décider au cas par cas/ the merits of the case: le
fond de la cause
to satisfy: convaincre
householder: propriétaire
self-defence: légitime défense
in good faith: de bonne foi
to prosecute: poursuivre
to advise: conseiller

§5       to bang: frapper violemment, claquer
to have one’s arm in a sling: avoir le bras en écharpe
to injure: blesser
further inquiries: enquêtes supplémentaires
pending: en attendant

§6       the long-running debate: vieux débat
straightforward: simple
in the dead of night: au coeur de la nuit
constituent: administré

§7       to be delighted: être enchanté
to stick one’s neck out: prendre des risques
to see sense: comprendre, entendre raison
to exonerate: disculper, innocenter
to hold one’s head high: garder la tête haute

§8      to impress sthg on sb: faire (bien) comprendre qq chose à qq

§9       shotgun licence: permis de détenir un fusil
to question: remettre en cause

The definition of a 'householder case'
Subsection (8A) of section 76 of the 2008 Act explains the meaning of a 'householder case'.

Householders are only permitted to rely on the heightened defence for householders if:

1) The are using force to defend themselves or others (See(8A)(a)). They cannot seek to rely
on the defence if they were acting for another purpose, such as protecting their property,
although the law on the use of reasonable force will continue to apply in these circumstances.

2) They are in or partly in a building or part of a building (e.g a flat) that is a dwelling (i.e. a
place of residence) or is forces accommodation (see (8A)(b)). For these purposes, the
definition of a 'building' includes vehicles or vessels (see (8F)), so that people who live in
caravans or houseboats can benefit from the heightened protection. The reference to 'forces
accommodation' acknowledges the fact that military personnel may spend lengthy periods
away from home in service living accommodation such as barracks. The term 'in or partly in
a building' is used to protect householders who might be confronted by an intruder on the
threshold of their home, climbing in through a window perhaps. But householder cannot rely
on the heightened defence if the confrontation occurred wholly outside the building, for
example in the garden. The Government considered that the immediacy of the threat posed by
an intruder is greatest when he is entering or has entered somebody's home and the heightened
defence is only available to householders in those cases (see MOJ Circular No. 2013/ 02).

3) They are not in the building as a trespasser ((8A)(c)). Squatters, for example, could not
seek to rely on the heightened defence. The fact that a person has gained permission to occupy
the building from another trespasser does not stop them being considered as a trespasser for
these purposes (see (8E)).

4) They genuinely believed (rightly or wrongly) that the person in respect of whom they used
force, was in or entering the building as a trespasser (8A)(d)).

The definition of householder contained in subsection (8B) is wide enough to cover people
who live in buildings which serve a dual purpose as a place of residence and a place of work
(for example, a shopkeeper and his or her family who live above the shop). In these
circumstances, the 'householders' could rely on the heightened defence regardless of which
part of the building they were in when they were confronted by an intruder. The only
condition is that there is internal means of access between the two parts of the building. The
defence would not, however, extend to customers or acquaintances of the shop keeper who
were in the shop when the intruder entered, unless they were also residents in the dwelling.

Subsection (8C) makes similar provision for the armed forces whose living or sleeping
accommodation may be in the same building as that in which they work and where there is
internal access between the two parts. The definition of 'forces accommodation is set out in
subsection (8F).

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

Murder, etc

Murder: When a person of sound memory (ie responsible according to the general
principles of criminal law) and of the age of discretion unlawfully kills any human being with
malice aforethought [préméditation] and the party wounded dies within a year and a day after
the act.

Malice aforethought means:

   •    intention to kill or
   •   intention to cause grievious bodily harm [coups et blessures] or
   •   recklessness [imprudence] as to death or grievous bodily harm

Manslaughter [homicide]:
       1) Voluntary manslaughter

The defendant may have the malice aforethought for murder but if one of the mitigating
circumstances (circonstances atténuantes) is present, the jury may convict him of
manslaughter instead:

   •   Provocation (causing sudden and temporary lack of self-control)
   •   Diminished responsibility
   •   killing in the course of a suicide pact
   •   excessive self-defence (killing by using more force than is allowed. However, the rule
       is uncertain and it seems that in such cases one had rather rely on the defence of
       provocation)

       2) Involuntary manslaughter

   •   Killing by gross negligence [négligence coupable](showing such disregard for life and
       safety for others as to amount to a crime against the State).
   •   Killing by intentionally doing an unlawful and dangerous act (constructive [implicite,
       par déduction] manslaughter ie requiring a criminal act of actual or constructive
       aggression, whether by force or by poisoning)
   •   Killing by an intentional act, being reckless whether bodily harm less than grievous
       bodily harm results (NB: Today the charge might be gross negligence)

Source: Law, D. Barker and Colin Padfield, 9th edition, Made Simple Books

Braqueur tué par un bijoutier dans la Marne: la légitime défense
en question
Par Christophe Cornevin
LeFigaro, le 29/11/2013

1) Le commerçant a ouvert le feu jeudi dans un corps à corps avec un malfaiteur
multirécidiviste. Il avait déjà été agressé. Sa garde à vue a été prolongée vendredi soir.
La thèse de la légitime défense pourrait, sous toutes réserves, être retenue au bénéfice du
bijoutier qui a tué par balles, jeudi après-midi, un braqueur venu dévaliser son commerce à
Sézanne, commune de 5200 âmes dans la Marne. Placé en garde à vue dans les locaux de la
brigade de gendarmerie d'Épernay, le commerçant a livré une version des faits confirmée par
la vidéosurveillance qu'il venait d'installer dans sa boutique après une précédente agression.
Lors d'un corps à corps, quatre coups de feu claquent.

2) D'après le scénario reconstitué avec précision par la section de recherches de Reims qui a
visionné les bandes, le drame s'est noué en 80 secondes. Vers 16 h 30, le braqueur se présente
dans la boutique, portant des gants et un bonnet, un sac en plastique vide à la main. Alors
qu'un complice fait le guet, il demande à la femme du bijoutier à voir un bijou, puis un
second. Intriguée par le «comportement bizarre» de cet étrange client, cette dernière se méfie,
pensant d'abord à un vol à l'étalage. Son mari, âgé de 54 ans et affairé au premier étage,
descend de la mezzanine avant de se retrouver soudain empoigné à la gorge et menacé d'une
arme au niveau du visage. Il s'agit d'un pistolet tirant des projectiles en plastique, dont
l'enquête a démontré qu'il était en fait dépourvu de munitions. Poussé vers le fond de son
magasin, le bijoutier, tireur sportif qui s'entraîne régulièrement dans un club de la région,
dégaine à son tour le pistolet automatique Glock de calibre 9 mm qu'il dissimulait dans son
dos. L'agresseur tente alors de s'en emparer par le canon. Lors d'un corps à corps, quatre
coups de feu claquent. Le voyou, transpercé au niveau du thorax, tente d'arracher le pistolet
avant de se le faire reprendre par le couple de commerçants qui repoussent l'agresseur
jusqu'au trottoir.

3) Arrivé devant la bijouterie quelques secondes après, Nicolas, un témoin de 34 ans, a vu que
le malfaiteur «a essayé de parler, a dit qu'il avait mal partout. Il a essayé de ramper sous une
voiture. D'autres personnes à proximité ont écarté l'arme avec le pied». Aux sauveteurs qui
ont tenté en vain de le sauver, le braqueur a lâché «on était trois, on venait du 94 (Val-de-
Marne)» avant de succomber.

4) Âgé de 36 ans, ce multirécidiviste affichait une dizaine de condamnations, dont une à dix
ans de réclusion par les assises du Val-de-Marne pour «vol avec arme et séquestration».
Impliqué dans l'attaque d'un supermarché du Kremlin-Bicêtre, le soir du 24 décembre 2000, il
avait hérité du surnom de «braqueur de Noël». Sorti de prison le 24 juin 2010 dans le cadre
d'une libération conditionnelle, il souffrait, selon son avocat Me Gérard Zbili, «de troubles
comportementaux qui sont allés en s'aggravant et il alternait la prison avec des séjours assez
réguliers en hôpital psychiatrique».

5) Son ou ses complices, qui ont pris la fuite en voiture, étaient toujours recherchés vendredi
dans le cadre d'un plan «Épervier». Le bijoutier, qui avait un permis de détention d'arme, a vu
sa garde à vue prolongée vendredi soir. «Mais il ne sera pas placé sous mandat de dépôt à
l'issue de son audition, a assuré au Figaro une source judiciaire, estimant que l'attaque dont il
a fait l'objet est flagrante et la riposte, proportionnée».

Resources:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:Law_Relating_to_Self_Defence

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19886504

http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/self-defence.php