See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: An Englishman's Home Is No Longer His Castle
Source:
Telegraph
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/ ... e-is-no-longer-his-castle.html
Published: Jan 13, 2009
Author: Philip Johnston
Post Date: 2009-01-13 06:52:29 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 130
Comments: 3
An ancient right to refuse forced entry into our houses has been tossed aside, says Philip Johnston. Before Christmas, a family friend had a visit from the bailiffs. For various complicated personal reasons, the local authority thought she had not paid a council tax bill. She had, only they had not registered it properly under the correct name. When the bailiff arrived at her home, she was out and her son answered the door. He walked in without a by-your-leave and proceeded to make an inventory of her possessions before departing. As can be imagined, she was horrified by this violation of her family's privacy. The local council, on checking its records, acknowledged its mistake and apologised. And that was that. Since a complete stranger had entered her home for no good reason, does that not constitute an affront, even if the door was opened by someone in the house? After all, an Englishman's home is his castle, isn't it? Apparently not. The powers of bailiffs to enter homes and seize property are wider today than they have ever been and are about to be strengthened further. We will be hearing a lot more of the bailiff in coming months. About 75,000 homes will be repossessed this year and hundreds of thousands of people will face action for unpaid debts. Local authorities are also using bailiffs to pursue council tax defaulters, with more than a million visits last year. If you want a job, here is one that will last while all around are losing theirs. Inevitably, it preys upon the misery of others; but someone has to do it. The issue, really, is how they do it and in what circumstances. Anyone who watched Little Doritt on television recently will know of Dickens's obsession with bailiffs that derived from the indebtedness of his father. But even the most rapacious bailiff in one of his novels did not have the power of his modern counterpart. Neckett in Bleak House had to be invited in to serve his warrant for debt on Skimpole. This is because, for centuries, bailiffs were unable forcibly to enter a home under a common law right of citizens established in around 1300 and reaffirmed on many occasions by the courts, as in the Semayne's judgment in 1604 from which the "Englishman's castle" concept derives, and by successive governments throughout history. In 1760, William Pitt (the Elder) made a famous declaration of this right. "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the king of England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." This right to refuse forced entry held for centuries until the Labour government, with its cavalier disregard for personal privacy, came along. In 2004, it introduced the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which contained a power to force entry in connection with unpaid fines imposed for criminal offences. This was a significant departure from the common law that merited a wide debate; yet it was included in a measure that, on the face of it, had nothing to do with bailiffs. The Government maintains that it was fully considered by Parliament; but it depends what you mean by fully. The Bill was in its final day in committee when ministers tabled "urgent" new proposals to show they were "getting tough" with fine dodgers. The minister, Chris Leslie, explained: "These amendments give enforcement officers the power to enter premises to execute a warrant of arrest, commitment, detention or distress where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the offender who is a subject of warrant is present." The MPs on the committee seemed to have little idea that they were being asked to set aside an ancient liberty, and Mr Leslie certainly did not spell it out. Dominic Grieve, the Tory spokesman and now shadow home secretary, smelled a rat but did not want to sound soft on fine dodgers. "We are about to give considerable powers to non-uniformed individuals… We are allowing them to enter private premises, which will not necessarily be the premises of the person whom they are seeking, to carry out searches… I am a little surprised that we are apparently introducing such potentially draconian legislation without paying real regard to the consequences on the ground on a day-to-day basis." Despite these doubts the Bill went through. Her Majesty's Courts Service issued guidance to bailiffs about how their powers should be used. "If a person locks himself in their home, it might be reasonable to break open the door, but probably not to smash a hole in the wall," it advises. In 2007, the Government extended these powers in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to allow bailiffs to use physical force against householders to restrain or pin down them down. The Government says the new powers when they are triggered will be overseen by a "robust industry watchdog" still to be established and could only be used as a last resort when all other suitable methods of enforcement have been exhausted. But that is beside the point. The fact remains that the liberties of "the poor man in his cottage" have been simply tossed aside, with the barest of parliamentary scrutiny.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
We're right behind them. Looks like the brits won after all in the end.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Countries Without a Draft circa 2001 (You'll need this soon if you have kids) RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP ping
the american government is a disease masquerading as its own cure The MP's on the committee did not know ( or care) about the vital issue they were voting on. And of course the Minister proposing this bill did not bother to give the MP's much in the way of info about the "down sides" of the legislation. No doubt this happens frequently on Capitol Hill - pols voting on legislation on the basis of what their Party Leaders tell them to do without reading the text through and voting on what is best for the electorate which they represent.
We are about to give considerable powers to non-uniformed individuals… We are allowing them to enter private premises, which will not necessarily be the premises of the person whom they are seeking, to carry out searches… I am a little surprised that we are apparently introducing such potentially draconian legislation without paying real regard to the consequences on the ground on a day-to-day basis."
"Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." ~~ IndieTx
#2. To: Ada, *libertarians*, *Jack-Booted Thugs* (#0)
#3. To: Ada (#0)
The minister, Chris Leslie, explained: "These amendments give enforcement officers the power to enter premises to execute a warrant of arrest, commitment, detention or distress where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the offender who is a subject of warrant is present." The MPs on the committee seemed to have little idea that they were being asked to set aside an ancient liberty, and Mr Leslie certainly did not spell it out.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest