Commentary
Ramesh Deosaran
“Regarding self-defence, the occupier would have no obligation to retreat, but may stand his ground and use defensive force, including deadly force, if he genuinely believes it is necessary to prevent imminent threat, death, serious bodily harm, grievous sexual assault, rape or the commission of a serious offence.”
This is part of what Attorney General John Jeremie told Parliament last week when he piloted the Home Invasion (Self-Defence and Defence of Property) Bill 2025, that is, the “stand-your-ground” legislation which the UNC strongly promised as one of its flagship policies during the election campaign.
Given the sensitive, complex elements governing the encounter between the house occupier and the home invader, government is well advised to mount an early public-education programme, explaining the major purpose of the bill, its novel features, the rights of residents to protect themselves and a clear, forceful warning to frighten potential home invaders, and also to all citizens, that they should not unlawfully enter private premises or dwelling homes for whatever reason. The possible consequences are now dangerous.
For too long, hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens have had their homes and family lives brutally invaded and even murdered – the most recent being an old lady whose throat was slashed in a home invasion.
Even those who enter for lawful purposes should inform the residents first – especially at a time when you are not sure who is or is not a police officer.
The bill has widespread public support. Rather than reject it, the PNM Opposition should have proposed amendments.
In its well-researched submission to the government, the Law Reform Commission stated: “Cognisant of this country’s multi-ethnic composition and socio-economic realities, the bill aims to achieve clarity and uphold proportionality and fairness for all would-be users.”
An enterprising criminologist, noting the intriguing social-science challenges in securing a balance in the bill’s provisions, should use it as a class demonstration.
Criminology is not only about reporting crime statistics. Criminology, as this bill shows, rests on the research and theories of sociology and psychology – whether it is about poverty, unemployment, policing, sentencing, school failures, relative deprivation – and, as such, it is a dependent social-science discipline.
There are also concepts like “honestly believe,” “in good faith,” “reasonable force in the heat of the moment,” “mistaken belief,” “honestly and instinctively thought,” etc, which judges have to interpret, even with the restraints on the house occupier.
This bill follows the Privy Council ruling which states: “It cannot be that every Act of Parliament which impinges in any way upon the rights protected in Sections 4 and 5 of the Constitution is for that reason unconstitutional…It is for Parliament in the first instance to strike a balance between individual rights and the general interest.” This is what AG Jeremie’s “stand your ground” bill does.
Those who claim this new bill is “draconian” should also know that the reported violence, pain and brutal murders committed by home invaders against poor people, senior citizens, even the disabled – night or day – are also draconian.
Home invaders viciously violate the country’s Constitution, which assures “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security and enjoyment of property; the right of the individual to respect for his person and family life” (Section 4).
Both home occupier and home invader are entitled to life, and not to be deprived of it without due process. But in the public interest and in view of the vicious house attacks by invaders, the bill shifts the balance under the Privy Council’s ruling.
The public should know who is a “home invader.” The bill gives a brief description: “A home invader means a person who knowingly enters or remains in a dwelling house in which he is not an occupant, with the intention to carry out a home invasion.”
What exactly is a “home invasion?”
The bill has 12 specific ways in which a home invader could commit this offence, three of which are: if he (or she) enters an occupied dwelling house and then forms the intention to commit a serious criminal offence; while armed with a weapon he intimidates, uses force or threatens the imminent use of force on any person within the dwelling house, whether or not injury occurs; he intentionally causes any injury, including grievous bodily harm or death, or commits a grievous sexual offence or rape, against any person in the dwelling house.
Educate the population about this.