Our homes should be our castles, Lord Judge tells burglars

A splendidly robust judgment from the Lord Chief Justice this morning supports lengthy sentences for burglars who violate the tranquillity of people’s homes.

Lord Judge, speaking for the Court of Appeal, said that domestic burglaries were not only an offence against property but also an offence against the person.

Quoting the 17th century judge Sir Edward Coke, Lord Judge said our homes should be our “safest refuge”.

He added: “There is a longstanding, almost intuitive belief that our homes should be our castles.

“Something precious is violated by burglary of a home and those who perpetrate this crime should be sentenced and punished accordingly.”

Despite this, last October a part-time judge in Leicester had misunderstood previous guidance and decided he could not sentence a man to prison for four domestic burglaries.

But burglary of a home was always a serious criminal offence, said Lord Judge, sitting with Lords Justices Latham and Hughes. The court upheld prison sentences in six separate cases.

In one of them, Colin Rocky McPhee, 25, had been sentenced to five years for tricking his way into the home of an 89-year-old man in Middlesbrough after midnight, even though McPhee found nothing to take. The occupant, a wheelchair user, thought the call was from a concerned neighbour.

“We pose the simple question,” the judges said: “What emotions will this victim experience every time a helpful neighbour rings his door bell in order to offer help and assistance?

“The answer is obvious. He will never forget the occasion when he was helpless while a burglar rummaged around his bedroom. The sentence was intended to protect the vulnerable from this predatory offender.

“We acknowledge that the sentence was severe, but it was not manifestly excessive.”

Some of the court’s comments are worth quoting in full.

“Where goods of slight economic but significant sentimental value are taken or damaged the impact on the victim is likely to be high, not least because these objects are irreplaceable. A photograph is worth nothing, except to the person who owns it, but it may be the only image left of grandparents, or now deceased parents.

“The loss or destruction of letters written in the early days of courtship may distress the widow or widower who has lost them far more than the disappearance of valuable electrical equipment.

“The presence of the victim at home in bed at night while the burglary occurs may well occasion especial trauma certainly if woken by the burglar, and even more so if he or she sees, or, worse, is confronted by the burglar. In these circumstances it would be unrealistic to regard the victim’s presence at home during a night-time burglary as merely a medium-level aggravating feature.

“The same may apply when the householder is at home during the daytime when a forced entry takes place, particularly if the homeowner is someone on his or her own, or someone who by himself or herself is caring for children or the elderly. Such a burglary is likely to cause considerable alarm and distress, and, often perhaps overlooked, while it is taking place, uncertainty about what to do and great fear about what may lie ahead.

“To all this we would of course add the particular effect on the elderly and infirm, whose last years can be overshadowed by what sometimes becomes an ever present, pervading fear and constant nervousness. Many warm and happy memories of bygone years can be destroyed as a direct consequence of burglary, and for some indeed, their home becomes something of a prison, as they barricade themselves behind the security arrangements they believe they need.”

Setting guidelines for future cases, the court acknowledged that there would be “low-level burglaries, with minimal loss and damage, and without raised culpability or impact, which may be dealt with by some form of punishment in the community rather than an immediate custodial penalty”.

But any domestic burglary with aggravated features — such as force, trauma to the victim, pre-mediation, vandalism, vulnerability and high-value or sentimental property — should normally attract a custodial sentence, beginning at nine to 18 months.

Posted at January 16, 2009 11:27 AM