Support for a push for Queensland home owners to be able to use lethal force against intruders has tripled since last year.<\/p>\n
The Queensland parliamentary petition on “castle law” has closed with more than 122,000 signatures, the highest-ever number of signatures for a public e-petition.<\/p>\n
It is the second attempt by the Katter’s Australian Party to bring the bill before the parliament, with a previous petition signed by more than 40,000 people.<\/p>\n
Kaz Hutchings experienced a home invasion while caring for her grandchildren in the Townsville suburb of Idalia in July this year.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Kaz Hutchings said the break-in she experienced in Townsville was terrifying. (ABC Wide Bay: Nikki Sorbello)<\/p>\n
Ms Hutchings, who chased the intruder out of her house onto the street as he came through the front door, said she backed the idea.<\/p>\n
“It is something I would support,” she said. “Whatever force necessary is a bit too broad, though.<\/p>\n
“I honestly believe you could get a bit carried away with yourselves.<\/p>\n
“There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Are you going to kill somebody inside your home?”Criminal law specialist says current law adequate<\/p>\n
The petition calls for changes to the self-defence provisions included in the state’s criminal code.<\/p>\n
It would allow for self-defence in the case of a home invasion by “whatever means necessary”, rather than the use of reasonable force stipulated in the current law.<\/p>\n
The idea of victims of crime having the express right to use lethal force has been mentioned in the state’s courts, despite it not being the law.<\/p>\n
A jury for a recent murder trial before the Toowoomba Supreme Court sought clarification from the judge about whether castle law applied to a case in which a man was found guilty of manslaughter for striking another man with his car<\/a>.<\/p>\n In his response, Justice Michael Copley told the jury: “There’s no such thing as ‘castle law’.<\/p>\n “The expression ‘castle law’ is not one known to the criminal law of this state,” he said.<\/p>\n “It’s some sort of euphemism developed by somebody or other without reference to the law.”<\/p>\n Brisbane-based criminal law specialist Nick Dore said the current law offered sufficient self-defence protections for victims of crime.<\/p>\n “If someone is under a genuine threat, the law currently is on their side,” he said.<\/p>\n Nick Dore says the law is already on the side of anyone under a genuine threat. (Supplied: Fisher Dore Lawyers)<\/p>\n “What the law doesn’t allow at the moment is disproportionate violence when there is no real danger.”<\/p>\n Mr Dore said doing away with the condition of reasonable force in situations where self-defence was required could have unintended consequences.<\/p>\n “It could turn non-violent situations into violent situations; it could increase vigilantism,” he said.<\/p>\n “I think it’s quite dangerous to give a blanket immunity.”<\/p>\n Government says no current plans for change<\/p>\n<\/p>\n