That " Home Defence " Question !

A curious case is making its way through the court and it raises an interesting question in the mind  of most home owners.  What protection do they have if they must use force to prevent someone breaking into their home  ?

A young couple are facing a murder charge when a deranged man, under the  influence of ice, burst into their home wearing a balaclava and threatening them with both what appeared to be a gun and knuckle dusters.  That gun was later  discovered to be a starting pistol.

The householder had a Japanese Samurai sword as part of the furnishings and he grabbed this as he fought to stave off the attacker.  At the height of the fracas he struck his opponent on the head, delivering a cut twenty-five centimetres long and two centimetres deep.   That blow caused the death of the intruder.

The court heard from a forensic pathologist that the attacker had what she believed would be an almost fatal level of methylamphetamine in his blood and was also affected by alcohol.  The householders are claiming self defence, but the battle moved from the home and into the street and it could be argued that the immediate danger has passed.

This is exactly the sort of incident that many people fear.  They are at home when a complete stranger, affected by drugs and alcohol bursts through their door and launches an attack.  In the course of the defence, that stranger is killed or seriously injured and they find themselves arrested and facing a judge and jury.

For the householders, it is a nightmare. They will need to pay legal counsel for their defence and that can run to thousands of dollars.  If the judge considers them a flight risk, they may be refused bail.  Most people are anxious to learn just what degree of resistance they can legally use to deter an intruder, and that is not spelt out in black and white in the law books.

In this case, the unusual factor is that Samurai sword.  It was probably brought to Australia at the end of the second world war and while it would be an interesting decoration, it is also a lethal weapon with a razor sharp blade.  It could be argued that using such a sword as a defence weapon would increase the danger of serious injury to the attacker.

The " rule of thumb " interpretation of this defence law seems to be that defending with bare hands is permissible, but complications arise if a weapon is involved.   That is something householders need to keep in mind.  Some people keep a cricket bat or something similar handy  to use in the event they encounter a burglar breaking into their home.

It seems the law is on your side, as long as you do not do any serious damage to the burglar !