Plan to allow 'disproportionate force' against burglars included in crime bill Chris Grayling, who said he was 'toughening up the current law for those who defend themselves and their loved ones'. Photograph: Ray Tang/Rex Features The justice secretary's promise to give householders the right to deploy "disproportionate force" in defending their homes will be incorporated into a parliamentary bill this week. At the Conservative party conference last month, Chris Grayling announced he would reform the frequently reviewed laws on self-defence. Criminal lawyers, however, have warned it may be difficult translating the initiative into legislation. A new clause is expected to be introduced into the crime and courts bill, now working its way through the House of Lords, this Tuesday. The aim is to reassure householders that they may use force against burglars. According to the Ministry of Justice, the changes will protect anyone who fears for the safety of their family, and in the heat of the moment uses force that is reasonable in the circumstances but in the cold light of day seems disproportionate. "The public should be in no doubt that the law is on their side," Grayling said on Sunday. That is why I am toughening up the current law for those who defend themselves and their loved ones. Householders who act instinctively and honestly in self defence are victims of crime and should be treated that way. We need to dispel doubts in this area once and for all. Force which is "grossly disproportionate" will remain illegal. The current law - section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - says the degree of force used in self-defence must be "reasonable in the circumstances" as the person acting genuinely believed them to be. A justification of acting "honestly and instinctively," taken from one key judgment widely relied upon, is already embedded in Crown Prosecution Service guidance. Use of "disproportionate force" is not at present lawful in any circumstances. Under Grayling's new clause, householders who act honestly to defend themselves, their families or others from an intruder using force that they believe is reasonable in the circumstances but is actually disproportionate when viewed with the benefit of hindsight will not be guilty of an offence. Interest in the self-defence laws was revived by a recent case involving Andy and Tracey Ferrie, who used a legally held shotgun to defend their remote Leicestershire cottage. The intruders were injured. The Ferries were held for 40 hours by police but were not charged. There are relatively few prosecutions of householders who use force against intruders. An informal trawl by the CPS suggests that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. Only seven of those resulted from domestic burglaries. In September, the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, implied there was sufficient leeway in the law as it stood to protect householders from unnecessary prosecution. Householders who defend themselves against burglars should not be expected to exercise "calm, cool judgment," he explained then. You are not calmly detached. You are probably very cross and very frightened - a mixture of both ... the householder is entitled to use all sorts of reasonable force to get rid of the burglar. Last month Michael Turner QC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said: "It's a vote-catcher. There's no concept elsewhere in British law of allowing anyone to use disproportionate force for pretty obvious reasons. It's no surprise that a non-lawyer [Grayling] would come up with such a crazy idea. Are we really saying that the police should not even investigate cases [where an intruder has been injured]? I can't believe this will make it into statute. Richard Atkinson, the chair of the Law Society's criminal committee, which represents solicitors, said when the proposal was first floated: "Whatever he comes up with will have to be very clear to be well defined. Grayling is setting himself a difficult task. Will it apply to commercial property as well as homes? There needs to be consultation on it. It will have judicial consequences in many other areas.