Should we have a go at being a hero?

New rules on tackling burglars are not as clear as they seem, reports harry underwood

Under new laws introduced this week, home-owners and 'have-a-go heroes' who retaliate against intruders and attackers are to enjoy greater legal protection.

Justice Minister Jack Straw said the public should have more confidence that they would not end up in court if they hurt an offender using "reasonable" force to protect themselves "in the heat of the moment".

Until now, the onus was too often on the victim of a burglary or mugging to prove in court that they didn't overreact. Now, before prosecuting, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service must give greater weight to whether the victim was acting "as they saw it at the time".

How police and prosecutors interpret these new guidelines remains a grey area. What is 'reasonable' when you are confronted by a midnight intruder? And while it is now

What is ‘reasonable’ when you are confronted by a midnight intruder?

considered appropriate to use a mugger's own weapon against him, what about using your own weapon?

Also, the new guidelines come with two provisos: that it is unacceptable to lie in wait to ambush a criminal, and that it is not permissible to use a weapon to attack a fleeing criminal.

How might the new rules have affected four renowned cases of self-defence from recent years?

BRETT OSBORN

In 2003, Brett Osborn, a 23-year-old casual labourer, was watching television with friends, including a pregnant woman, when a blood-covered man called Wayne Halling entered their Romford house in a frenzy.

Halling, who was suffering from cocaine-induced delusions, had been smashing the windows of other houses in the street with his head and fists. Confusing one of Osborn's friends for his girlfriend, he barged into the house and pursued her along a corridor. After his friends had failed to restrain the