Sentencing two men who were shot whilst burgling a house in Leicestershire last month to four years in jail, the judge said:

“If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally-held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it.”

The owners of the property,Mr and Mrs Ferrie were also arrested and questioned for more than 40 hours on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm. They were later released without charge.

Are we now starting to see with this case following on from several others where property owners have defended themselves and their property with potentially lethal force, a shift back in favour of the rights of the victim outweighing the rights of the perpetrators?

Many years ago now (before the ban on handguns following the Dunblaine incident) I used to be a member of a shooting club and I legally owned three handguns (two full bore and one small bore) I often pondered what my reaction to confronting intruders in the middle of the night in my home would have been!

Thankfully, I was never put to the test. But If I had been, in the heat of the moment and in fear for mine or my family's life the temptation to have shot the intruders would have been very great indeed! I know that in America if you shoot an intruder dead whilst in your house you are automatically seen as being in the right.

As criminals become more violent are we right to expect the courts to side with the victim who kills or wounds an intruder whilst in the commission of crime on your property?