Initially I gasped at this, but have just read what they did to the burglar. I totally understand why they did it, but, I can also understand why the judge has taken such harsh action, I do think it is too harsh and as a first offence and due to mitigating circumstances a probation term or community service would have been appropriate.

When the family had the guys restrained, yes they should have called the law immediately and not done anything else, but the 2 men used weapons and beat the living crap out of one of the guys. As I said, I can fully understand due to what they put the family through, but there is a justice system in this country and I think the judge is trying to send the message that even in extreme circumstances, violence to that extent will not be tolerated.

Saying that though, if any fecker got in here (and given they'd managed to get past the dog), my baseball bat would be wrapped round their neck without a second thought. And I would have to face the consequences. But so be it.

It does sound rather different in the Times!
I agree with Karma. (the FM, not the concept)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...e/article6956044.ece

*Hears the sound of a basqullion tabloid readers heads exploding*

On a serious note, sad story, and I'm sorry for making light of it. But the conflicted emotions of yer average "hang 'em high" type is too tempting to not prod. 

i have read the first few pages of comments on the story and everyone is in agreement that the hussains did the right thing and should be freed and i agree too.
those thugs had knives and assulted his family and beat him, the one that was caught deserved all he got.
he should consider himself lucky that he got off so lightly, had the same crime been commited out here he would have been  beaten or stabbed to death with his own knife and then dumped out at sea, the police would not have been informed.

Two serious crimes were committed.  Had Hussain and his brother beat one of the intruders like that in their home in fear of their lives and with whatever potential weapon came to hand then I'm sure they'd be free men.  In fact, it might not even have gone to court.  But they didn't.  They chased the intruders down the road and beat one of them repeatedly with a cricket bat until it broke in three places and gave the intruder brain damage, to a sufficent extent it seems that he was even unable to plead at his own case.  Much as it might annoy some people, there were two victims here even if Hussain's rage is entirely understandable and the result seems like cosmic justice.  It's a mitigating circumstance, not a defence in law.  The law provides for self-defence, even to the point of using deadly force, but it does not provide for revenge by the victims.  It can't really be otherwise.  The force used must be reasonable and proportionate to defend oneself or restrain a criminal.  Anything else would allow all sorts of situations to occur and the rule of law would be undermined.  The state, and only the state, has the authority to punish people.  This isn't a softly-softly modern liberal approach to crime and deviance, it's been like this in common law for hundreds of years I believe and it's been explicit in criminal law since 1967.

fair enough to use reasonable force to defend yourself, family,home  but having done that to run after the intruders and exact vengeance  is clearly going too far, i can see why they were sentenced.

deej it wasn't like they caught up with the thug a week later and beat him, it was in the heat of the moment so could hardly be described as revenge.

"But - on that awful night - we thought we were going to die. All that was going through my father's mind was to protect his family. We didn't choose to be victims of crime. We were just innocents until this was thrusted upon us. But now our lives are wrecked because of a situation no-one could possibly ever prepare or legislate for, let alone control.

I can see what the son means here, the fear that must have gone through them must have been terrible.

Sad story all round i think, if i were in that situtaion i think the rage would take over too.

How many parents wouldn't lash out like this when the lives of their whole family had been threatened? Not saying it's right, just sad.

thing is they weren't in fear of their lives when they attacked  the bloke, the threat to them was gone,as they fled,battering the bloke with a cricket bat was an act of vengeance.

But as contessa said it was still in the heat of the moment, if they had plotted to beat the men half to death and gone looking for the men a day or two afterwards then i would consider the vengeful, feeling of fear dont just instantly disappear, they linger.

I think the Court was pretty lenient...the house owner only got two and a half years for beating some one so hard with a bat it left them brain damaged.

Plus, it's not as if the Court turned a blind eye to the burglar.  The burglar wasn't in a fit state to plead, so how can they punish some one who can't give a plea or defend himself?

I have to say though, as I read the first few lines of the story and what they did to the family I thought, good for you beating the bejaysus out of them, but the judge was right, you can't let some one away with delivering their own form of justice.  Civilised society and all that

yes, i know it was in the heat of the moment and after severe provocation, one can sympathise but  if sentencing for any violent crime, which this was,is nullified  by 'being in the heat of the moment' it opens the floodgates for anyone to beat some one senseless and excuse themselves.

Sad as it is, I think the sentencing was the correct decision.

Being ingnorant on the details of the law, I would personally like to know more about why the robber was unfit to plead. According to the Times he's now in custody awaiting trial for credit card fraud. How come he is fit for one but not the other?


All that aside, weirdly the thing that has annoyed me most about this whole case is reading the way the Sun reported it. I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry.   They wrote it as if the "revenge" attack happened in the house.... not halfway down the street as the robber was running away. A completely different set of circumstances.

God I hate the tabloids.

As far as the second crime is concerned, could it have been described as self-defence using reasonable force though?  That's why he was found guilty and sentenced.

As a Football fan I don't have anything to do with the newspaper mentioned but if the OAP's title is anything to go by then they have totally misrepresented the occurrences. I believe that the subject of vigilantism was superbly dealt with and put to bed, in the motion picture Dirty Harry.

after beating the sh!t out of that kind of scum I would have dumped their bodies down the local park. Whether they were dead, alive or unconcious (sp?). I have no faith in the CPS they are even more scum

Oh yeah, as i said in my first post i'm not saying they shouldnt be punished, as i said its just a very sad story.

Those Pakistanis can certainly wield a cricket bat.  No wonder they won the World Twenty20 this year!

I should really of looked at another paper for this story, The Sun always takes a side in it all

next we'll here how 'some poor thief broke into Mr So and So's & broke his leg & is now suing Mr So and So'. If we can't protect ourselves in our own homes then what s the point of laws? The police don't have the right to charge these people. They have to apply to the cps & if it looks too hard or too much is involved they opt for the easy option. THE CAUTION because it works so well -NOT-

We can. Even to the point of killing someone if necessary. The point you're missing is that it didn't happen in his own home.  It happened down the street away from the house as the intruders were trying to get away after being disturbed.  The owner and his brother beat one of them nearly to death as he lay on the floor using a cricket bat and a metal pole.

Look:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_...ce/#Reasonable_Force

It has even been clarified recently:

"There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.

However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

• an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
• they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
• the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
• an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence."

http://www.protectingyourself....elf-defence-law.html

I heard this being discussed on the radio a couple of days ago, and I think the sentence was about right.   Initially I thought it was outrageous that the man should have been sent to prison for defending his family, but once you read the full facts, it's not quite what it seems.  I don't think anyone would deny that he and his family went through the most horrendous ordeal, and I'm sure most people would have supported him using whatever force was at his disposal in self defence to protect his family.  But this wasn't the case at all.  When the intruders left, Mr Hussain didn't stay with his wife and family, who were presumably traumatised by what had happened.  Instead, he summoned help, chased the intruders down the road, and then beat one of them so severely that he broke the cricket bat in three places and left the burglar with permanent brain damage.  The report in the Times described neighbours seeing 'several men beating Salem (the intruder) with weapons, including a metal pole'.  That isn't self defence.

The court clearly took the circumstances into account in sentencing Mr Hussein, and I think under normal circumstances he would have been given a far harsher sentence for such a severe assault.

Agree Growly (and Jackson). I suppose if he had caused such damage to the intruder in the midst of a fight between just the two of them then the circumstances would have been different, then, IMO it is self-defence. But he ran after them (with friends) outside the house and gave him a good pasting. Cant say I blame him at all given what he and his family had just been put through, but he should have just restrained the bloke, gave him a few crafty kicks and called the police. Easy to say behind a keyboard I suppose, who knows what any of us would do? To be at the merciful hands of bastards and have to watch while they traumamtise our family, for then to be given free rein over one of them to do as we wished, not sure common sense or considering possible consequences really comes into it.

Sounds like the Judge got it right under the circumstances...

Me and my neighbour caught a mid teen burglar trying to break into the neighbours shed a few years back.  twas a big shed with all sorts of expensive gadgets etc.. we locked him in there... he was bawling his eyes out in the end just cos he couldn't escape. . he kept begging us to let him go..   we did eventually...  bless his little cotton socks... ,  plus his mates who had also tried to break into the shed had legged it by then so he was all alone.. not such a hard guy then,,   

he never came back again tho... and no cricket bats or weapons of any kind were used in the teaching of the lesson that day... 

It's disgusting ..... it's SO wrong

I can't help feeling that if proper justice was given out by our Judges it wouldn't be necessary for people to take the law into their own hands in the first place.  Whilst I agree the beating was a step too far, it says it all that the people who were broken into are the ones who are punished yet the perpetrator is let off scot free.  Maybe they had no faith in a judiciary which is why they acted as they did!

My brother said exactly the same thing today. Our justice system is not enough of a deterrent to stop people terrorising innocent people like this in the first place.

Strictly speaking, he wasn't.

Sorry DanJ but that's rubbish as a persistent offender and for brandishing a knife he should have received jail time but he didn't so yes he did get off scot free by the judiciary.  The only punishment seems to have come from Hussein - and yes I agree it's not nice that he had a fractured skull and brain injury and a lot would argue that's punishment but I don't.  I really feel that even if he'd not received any injuries he'd have still walked away from court with a supervision order and what sort of punishment is that?

I don't know what would deter people.  I'm off to South Africa for a while soon and the people there can arm themselves.  The fact that home-owners are likely to shoot burglars does not seem to deter them.  What happens is that the burglars come armed themselves.  In fact, South Africa has an extraordinary level of violence generally.  Perhaps the UK and South Africa are not sensibly comparable but at least burglary with accompanying violence in the UK is fairly rare I think.  I imagine most career burglars want to be in and out without actually meeting anyone, unlike the intruders in the story here.

Good post Dan. And worthwhile thinking about. We moan about this country (well I do), but it could be so much worse. At least here we are protected by a law, not always a fair one, but it's still there.

No need to apologise.  As you say yourself, he got a two year supervision order and therefore, as I say, he did not get off scot free strictly speaking.  He was sentenced and hence must have been found guilty.  Whether you think that is adequate is another matter.  Obviously, having brain damage is a life sentence in itself but I can't say I'll be shedding any tears over that.  I was under the impression supervision orders were given to youths to try to persuade them from a future life of crime?  If so then perhaps the intruder was a youth.  I can't find his age on any of the stories.

Blimey, the Daily Mail of all papers has much more detail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ife-raider-home.html

The guy (Walid Salem) was 56.

"Hussain then threw a coffee table at the third man, 56-year-old Walid Salem, hitting him in the face. His older son Awais, 20, joined the fight and although Salem tried to escape he was bundled into a nearby garden. Neighbours in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, then saw several men beating him with weapons including a cricket bat and a metal pole. He was left with injuries including a fractured skull and bruising on the brain. Hussain denied attacking Salem, claiming it was a group of local youths. But a jury at Reading Crown Court found him guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent."

and

"He said witnesses had told of seeing three or four Asian men encircling Salem in a garden, ' kicking and stamping on him as he lay there' for several minutes."

So he lied about it too? No wonder he got a custodial sentence!

Well, quite.  He'd have got a third off the sentence just for telling the truth.

I still don't really blame him for what he did.  I may have done the same given what the bloody toerags seemed to be intending to do.

It was also a jury trial, as you'd expect I suppose, and they decided he was guilty of GBH with intent after hearing all the details.  That is, they didn't intend to kill him but intended to inflict the harm for its own sake.

I think most people would agree with this DanJ but most would also agree that Hussein took things too far with the type of punishment he dished out.  As there were so many of them, perhaps they should have sat on him and called the Police


This is yet another example of where knife crime isn't taken seriously - I thought there was supposed to be a minimum sentence of 5 years or so for carrying a knife let alone brandishing it in a break in!

I'm with you there.  It makes me really mad that carrying a knife with intent doesn't carry a stiff sentence, like carrying a gun.

well there is a petition started for the hussains to be released, i will look for it later and sign.
i also signed for the tony martin one when he shot the pikey scum.
britain is all for for protecting the criminals and letting the scummy bastids walk free.
sometimes taking the law into your own hands is a good thing...works ok here, scum caught, beaten half to death or killed, result no more crime by that individual...simples.