Police published advice for householders today explaining how much violence they can use against burglars who invade their home.
Weapons can be used and intruders can even be killed, as long as the householder is doing what he or she "honestly and instinctively" believes is necessary "in the heat of the moment", according to the guidelines.
The leaflet by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers attempts to clear up confusion over the point at which defending family and property becomes a crime. At present the law says "reasonable force" can be used, but campaigners have complained that too many householders are being arrested.
The guidelines follow an announcement three weeks ago by Home Secretary Charles Clarke that the law would not be changed to allow more force to be used against intruders.
The document, which will be distributed through libraries, Citizens’ Advice Bureaux and police forces in England and Wales, says: "You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment.
"So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon."
The leaflet adds that the more extreme the circumstances and the more frightened a householder, the more force he or she can lawfully use. It also points out that intruders do not necessarily have to be the first to use violence.
It says: "If you have acted in reasonable self defence ... and the intruder dies you will still have acted lawfully. Indeed there are several such cases where the householder has not been prosecuted."
It warns that householders can still face the courts for using "excessive and gratuitous force" if, for example, they knock someone unconscious but continue to attack them afterwards, or if they set a trap to hurt or kill intruders without consulting police.
If burglars are escaping with property, householders can use force to recover it, says the leaflet, adding: "A rugby tackle or a single blow would probably be reasonable." But it goes on: "Acting out of malice and revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment through injury or death would not."
Ken Macdonald QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: "The law is on the side of householders. Prosecutions of householders for tackling intruders are extremely rare. Even where householders have badly injured or even killed burglars, the CPS has declined to prosecute unless they have used wholly excessive force.
"However, there has been concern and uncertainty over the force that householders are able to use, so we need to explain how we deal with these sensitive cases and give some guidance on what we mean by reasonable force. CPS lawyers will prioritise these cases to ensure that we make decisions as quickly as possible."
Chris Fox, the President of Acpo, said: "We want everyone to clearly understand that they can use force to protect themselves or others. The force used should be reasonable force. We want everyone to understand that while we have to investigate the circumstances of such events, we will always remember that anyone engaged in a criminal act should expect reasonable force to be used against them by their victim."
Tony Blair said today that a change in the law was unnecessary. In an interview for GMTV, the Prime Minister said: "What the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are saying is 'we don't actually need to change the law. What we need is for people to understand they are perfectly entitled to defend themselves against burglars in their own home'.
"And the police and the CPS, I think in a very sensible and responsible way, are saying today 'Don't be in any doubt, you are entitled to defend yourself and it is only in the most extreme set of circumstances that anyone is going to get prosecuted for attacking or killing a burglar in their own home'."
Mr Clarke said last month that discussions with police and prosecutors had concluded that the existing law was "sound". He called on officials to educate the public about how far they could go to defend their property under current law.
However Sir John Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, gave Michael Howard his support for a Conservative proposal to strengthen the defence of reasonable force for victims who retaliate in their homes. Sir John's comments came after City executive John Monckton was knifed to death at his Chelsea home and his wife Homeyra seriously injured.
Mr Blair appeared in December to back Tory proposals for a re-think on the law, saying: "I hope we can reach agreement on it".
Patrick Mercer, the Conservative MP, has published a Private Member's Bill proposing householders should face charges only if they use "grossly disproportionate force" and David Davis, the shadow home secretary, has urged Mr Clarke to re-think his decision not to change the law.
But Malcolm Starr, a spokesman for the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin who was jailed for shooting teenage burglar Fred Barras, said last month that the Tory proposals were "simply swapping one legal phrase for another" and a "waste of time".
In the past 15 years, only 11 people have been prosecuted for attacking intruders, including cases in which burglars were pursued and shot as they fled and one in which an intruder was tied up and set alight.
What is "reasonable force"?
Join the debate
