As an employer, have you the right to defend your property?
There has been much debate over the release of Munir Hussain, who was jailed for harming an intruder who attacked him and his family.
That case regarded protecting one’s family and home. What happens in a situation where your company property or your employees are at risk?
What if you are a business that hires security guards or a night club that engages bouncers, is it right for you to ask them to perform their duties and protect property or patrons? What happens in a situation where a security guard, to prevent a robbery of company goods or protect employees, applies such force so as to permanently injure or, in a worst case scenario, kill an intruder? What really amounts to reasonable force? Not only may that individual face criminal prosecution but he may lose his job on the grounds of gross misconduct.
Also what is your liability in those circumstances since you hired these individuals to perform certain tasks? After all you owe them a duty of care to provide a safe working environment. Does your public liability insurance cover death or injury to members of the public who are in the process of committing a crime and that security guard/bouncer is merely undertaking their role?
Let’s say that your employee’s role was not to apply some force, but they were an ordinary employee at a petrol station or a shop. If a robbery takes place, who protects them?
Interesting times. With the high profile of this case, a security guard or bouncer may think twice before applying force as their liberty may far outweigh any job.
What are your views?
3 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
This ‘Right to defend your property’ question has been given a much higher profile over recent months, I am a regular listener to Radio phone in shows and have listened to much debate which invariably takes one extreme view or other.
In nearly every situation that I have heard discussed, I have to say that I am in support of the defender.
There are always situations where the potential over zealous nature of a defender comes into question but who is to say whether a defender was in genuine fear for life or not?
I think that if we accept that within reason you do have the right to defend property then, within reason, we must accept a judgement of whether reasonable force was used will come into question too.
Yes, sometimes our legal process will get it wrong, but not often. Also too lenient a stance will do little to prevent an offence in the first place.
This whole question is a judgement call, the intruder shouldn’t be there in the first place, the defender shouldn’t exercise unnecessary violence.
The Judgement of our legal process invariably gets it right.I think this comment should be removed
With regard to an employee, employed to provide a security service to a company – strict training should be provided to cover the role of the security guard. In all circumstances, the employee should observe the training given and if in doubt, should not enter into any untoward confrontational issue if injury to either party could result.
However, should a situation arise where the employee has acted within the confines of their job description, then the company, following full investigation, should support the employee if the company is satisfied that no misconduct has taken place.
Regarding personal action following an intruder entering a family home, the intruder should not expect a reaction of considered reasonable force from a frightened member of the public, who would only be concerned with protecting their family and home from potential harm.I think this comment should be removed
Shoot first ask questions later! this country’s legal system is sometimes farcical!I think this comment should be removed