So, once again, a thuggish individual has felt the wrath of British law:

Munir Hussain, who was threatened at knifepoint and tied up by a gang of masked men in his living room last year, was told he must go to prison for 30 months to preserve “civilised society”.

That’s the ticket! And what, you may ask, was his crime?

Mr Hussain, his wife and children [were ambushed] as they returned to their home in High Wycombe, Bucks, on Sept 3 last year after attending Ramadan prayers at their local mosque, Reading Crown Court heard.

Their hands were tied behind their backs and they were forced to crawl from room to room before being forced to lie down in the living room.

But when Hussain’s teenage son managed to escape and raise the alarm, he seized his chance and turned on his captors.

While two of them got away, Salem was cornered in a neighbour’s front garden. With the help of his brother, Tokeer, 35, who lived nearby, Hussain set upon him with a metal pole and a cricket bat, the court heard.

He was struck so hard that the bat broke and he suffered a fractured skull. He was later deemed not fit to plead to charges of false imprisonment and given a supervision order.

There is a curious asymmetry of justice here: a vicious gang threatens a man’s family in his home, the police (of course) fail to catch the remaining miscreants and a pompous judge fails to punish the original transgressor with even a cursory slap on the wrist, while another pompous judge talks about “preserving civilised society” while doing his level best to bring about its downfall. I’m a reasonably mild-mannered man myself, but if someone were to threaten my family with a weapon and the chance arose for me to express my opinion, I certainly would not hold back – even if the Criminal Justice system in this country wasn’t so, well, criminal. It is hardly surprising that someone in Mr Hussain’s position would snap. Judge Reddihough has, ironically, done more to damage faith in his vision of a civilised society than if he’d ordered the knife-wielding thug hung and set Mr Hussain off with a pat on the bottom and a wish of “Bonne chance!”

It is possibly true that in a civilised society, we should not pursue thugs out of our homes and beat their miserable hides within an inch of death. But then it’s also certainly true that in a civilised society, knife-wielding thugs shouldn’t threaten a man and his family. It’s also true that the police should be able to catch such miscreants if they do threaten a man and his family, yet we see no sign of apprehending the thugs who accompanied the “poor, innocent victim” of this brutal beating. And of course, it’s also true that judges should be counted on to actually punish people who live outside of the law.

I fail to see how this travesty will do anything to make people feel anything but that they dare not defend themselves in any way and wonder why we have a police force or judges. Inevitably, there is only one way in which this insult upon natural justice could get worse and today, we are halfway there:

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, promised a review of current legislation if his party wins power in next year’s general election.

Ah, the magic of a “review of legislation”! The first sound of a bandwagon being hitched. It’s like the mating call of politicians. I am slightly disappointed that the sensible man of the people, Postman Al, has not yet latched on to this, possibly ordering a “review” of the case so that he can come across as being sensitive to the feelings of the public, and being even more effective and directed than his opposite number, who is the Tory “attack chihuahua”. There is no headline that cannot be usurped by a politician promising a review, which will be undertaken over several agreeable, taxpayer-funded lunches, achieve nothing and then be quietly forgotten.

While Jack “The Hat” Straw insists that the definition of “reasonable force” is adequate to provide defence for people like Mr Hussain, it’s hard to imagine what may have transpired in that situation. Perhaps the thugs could have implied that they’d be back, perhaps when Mrs Hussain was at home alone, or perhaps they could have said that they knew where Mr Hussain’s children went to school. Unlike Mr Straw, normal citizens do not have round the clock protection by the police, nor do they have the resources of the entire “justice system” at their beck and call. Perhaps this case is just another symptom of a political elite (which includes the judiciary) that is increasingly dissociated from the rest of us.

But one thing is for sure: the cause of justice and an improvement in the lives of the rest of us will never be served by the mealy-mouthed utterances of politicians, desperate to hitch themselves to the latest bandwagon.

1
Henry Crun December 20, 2009 at 11:13

Salem was lucky to get away with a few cracks about the head from Mr. Hussain’s cricket bat.

If some f****er breaks into my home and threatens my family, I’ll deliver him to the police station in a bin bag.

2
Anna Raccoon December 20, 2009 at 11:36

Compare and contrast with the case of Mehmet Goren who has been unniversally condemmed for handing out his own brand of justice.

On the one hand we hail as a ‘hero’ a man who takes the law into his own hands, and in the same week, condemn as ‘medievil’ another man from a similar culture for adhering to his ‘traditional values’.

3
Subrosa December 20, 2009 at 12:13

Ireland, it appears, have changed their law:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6844727/Right-to-defend-yourself-Ireland-has-changed-law-so-why-cant-Britain.html

Anna, Mr Goren has to live by the laws of THIS country not the country of his birth. Mr Hussain of course didn’t live by the laws of this country either because nobody’s allowed to protect their nearest and dearest or their own property without knowing they could face a jail sentence. That’s where the problem arises, the law is pro- criminal.

4
David hadley December 20, 2009 at 12:14

Shouldn’t that be Jack ‘The Hijab’ Straw?

5
Katabasis December 20, 2009 at 13:15

This case boggles my mind. Having dealt with many scrotes just like this over the years I think I can predict quite accurately what Salem and pals were all about. 54 – Fifty Four!! – previous convictions. He and his cronies will have been well known to the neighbors. It is abundantly clear that Salem himself has absolutely no fear of “the law” or consequences shy of having his brains beaten out.

This type will always, always come back. It will always escalate. The police will almost always fail to stop them or protect the family. There is an ineluctable logic to these situations with such individuals. Once you are ‘targeted’ it will never end until someone is killed or hospitalised. The brothers surely knew this – they knew that something would likely happen to Munir’s daughter on the way back from the shops, or they would leave the house for a few hours to come back and find it in flames.

If this happened in South Yorkshire there is absolutely no way you could count on the police to deal with it. The kind of vigilante self defence that ensures they don’t come back is the only way. Believe me I know.

6
Sabot December 20, 2009 at 14:03

While I think that this man may have gone a bit over the top, who wouldn’t be in a rage after what had happened to himself and his family? I do think that 30 months was very harsh. A suspended setence would have sufficed.

The fact is that we can’t have victims beating criminals over the head with a cricket bat without some sort of censure.

The problem lies with the Justice System and various Police Forces. But then we all know that.

However, woe betide anyone who ever breaks into my house.

7
john ward December 20, 2009 at 15:09

As the day has begun heading towards its end, Postie Johnson has indeed piped up to suggest that Zanulabel will ‘look at’ changes in the law allowing citizens to defend themselves.
Before this, however, Jack Straw approved this very day a trial procedure to ’save time’ in our Courts (being tested in Kent, lucky them) to force defendants to appear in a police video taken at the time of their arrest – rather than in person. The man is mad: even today’s Observer describes him as ‘about as friendly to the Rule of Law as a Viking raider’.
But how odd it is that that our processes of law and judgment focus on protecting the rich, the powerful and the perverted from criticism, criminals and terrorists from abuse of their rights, and politicians from attack?
Surely this could not mean ambitious police policy-makers collaborating with a fat and privileged Establishment? That doesn’t happen in Britain does it?
Are you kidding – do judges like little boys?
YM

8
Sabot December 20, 2009 at 15:53

Didn’t they try to do away with The Right to Silence? I don’t think that got very far. Did it? It certainly shouldn’t have done.

But unfortunately it is only criminals and the reasonably bright that know that most reasonably honest people convict themselves, usually concerning minor crimes like traffic accident. I learned that one a very long time ago. These days I wouldn’t even admit to being female.
So I can well imagine what hardened criminals would do.

9
bleedin’ obvious! December 20, 2009 at 20:16

The police have been neutered. They’ve had their bollocks cut off. There was once a time when coppers had the ability to exercise their discretion as to what to do in the vast majority of circumstances. That’s all history now. It’s long gone.

Before 1980, we had undeniably the best police force in the world – and the whole world knew it. Now we have a bunch of zombie robot droids who have alienated themselves from their natural supporters. They have become increasingly hated by the law-abiding majority.

No one individual can be held accountable for this deterioration, but three can: Leon Brittan, Michael Howard and Jack Straw. Any connection with their common ethnic origin is purely coincidental (as I’m obliged to point out for obvious reasons).

10
bleedin’ obvious! December 20, 2009 at 20:23

Oh, yeah…
Sorry Anna, I forgot your point.

When a Hindu or a Muslim murders their daughter for marrying an Englishman, it’s an ‘Honour Killing’ – when an Englishman kills a foreigner for ANY reason, it’s a ‘Racially-Motivated Murder.’ What truly fucking nasty horrible bastards the English are, eh?

11
Alan December 20, 2009 at 22:09

Sabot said: “The fact is that we can’t have victims beating criminals over the head with a cricket bat without some sort of censure.”

Too right. Mr. Hussain ruined a perfectly decent cricket bat.

He and his brother could have detained the criminal. They chose not to. Why did it take so long to go to court? Why should medical conditions exclude the criminal from prosecution? Why did Salem have a list of convictions as long as several arms? The judiciary should hang it’s head in shame. But so should the Hussains. They clearly went further than the law sees as reasonable. Hit ‘em on the legs and arms next time. No major organs. Little chance of permanent damage. If it’s alright for the Police to do this while detaining perps it’s alright for the little people too.

I wonder of the Hussains went about it like a right pair of plums – beating the crap out of someone who fully deserved it and then co-operating with the Police at every step because that is what decent people do.

Judge John Reddihough says: “However, if persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended offender rather than letting justice take its course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which are the hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.”

So the Police and various other pseudo-Police groups will cease, forthwith, to issue fixed penalty charges? They are not justice either. Instant and violent (to my wallet). It is not the hallmark of a civillised society to punish people for feeding ducks. A justice system that fails to punish, fails to rehabilitate and fails to protect the public is the hallmark of an uncivillised society.

Judge John Reddihough is clearly not of this planet when wanted to “make it absolutely clear that, whatever the circumstances, persons cannot take the law into their own hands, or carry out revenge attacks upon a person who has offended them”

That is a gross understatement. The Hussain family were not merely ‘offended’. Is it any wonder people do meet out punishment themselves when the judiciary come out with such crap?

12
fidothedog December 21, 2009 at 01:55

When will this government end, roll on the day we can consign it to the bio bin of history.

13
Henry Crun December 21, 2009 at 11:18

When the law fails to protect those who abide by the law, is it any wonder that the law abiding then take the law into their own hands?