Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

I take it from the Minister's reply that he feels that the balance provided by the 1997 Act is the correct balance. The law needs to be rebalanced and the pendulum needs to be swung more in favour of the home owner who has to face an intruder, perhaps in very difficult circumstances. I am not referring to a recent major case but am talking about the general issue. There are approximately 25,000 burglaries per annum, two thirds of which involve intrusion into people's homes. The onus is on us to provide the home owner, in so far as we can, with the best possible protection.

I am particularly concerned at the Minister's statement that the fact of a person having the opportunity to retreat before using force should be taken into account. That is a matter of major concern to home owners who might be faced with a very difficult situation at very short notice.

Objective commentators such as Professor Finbar McAuley of UCD have referred to this issue and argued that the phraseology in the 1997 Act needs to be examined. In the United Kingdom, where there have been similar difficulties, moves are afoot to go much farther than even I would be prepared to go, that is, to put an onus on the prosecution to prove that the force used by a home owner was grossly disproportionate. Does the Minister believe there should be a greater onus on the prosecution to prove that the home owner was unreasonable, rather than the current situation, which leaves the matter somewhat up in the air, at least as far as a jury is concerned?

See this speech in context