Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

This has been an issue for some time and relates to the unfortunate situation in the context of householders who react aggressively when their homes are burgled. In the particular case to which I refer, a householder and his wife woke up at 5.30 a.m. to find a burglar walking around and inspecting the bedroom. He did not indicate why he was there, but it can be presumed he did not come to read the meter or to check the air conditioning or the like. The householder presumed he was there with felonious intent and reacted accordingly. He pursued the individual for some time and, as a result, the individual who had intended to commit a crime suffered injuries for which he received considerable compensation, an amount of €175,000 from the householder's insurance company, by agreement.

Fortunately for the householder, he was acquitted of having assaulted or caused grievous bodily harm and was not penalised. It is ironic and strange, however, that the burglar received a suspended sentence. Every so often issues arise that challenge the imagination and credulity of the public. If there was ever a case that illustrates beyond shadow of doubt that it is profitable to become involved in crime, to break into somebody's house and lodge a claim against them in the reasonable expectation of winning the claim, this is it. Why would anyone work in legitimate employment? Is it not easier for burglars to go off and rob a few houses from time to time and if they get injured while doing so, make a claim against the insurance of the householder or factory owner? They cannot lose. They will get an award and will only end up with a suspended sentence. What could offer them more encouragement?

The time has come to say enough is enough. This kind of nonsense goes on from time to time. I remember a case some years ago when a burglar who broke into a warehouse was injured and he sued the owner of the warehouse successfully in court. In the case I mentioned earlier the case was taken against the insurance company. Therefore, there are two issues. The first is the readiness and willingness of insurance companies to pay out in situations of this nature when it is quite clear the person has no authority to enter the householder's home. In the case I mentioned, he did not have the householder's permission and was not there to paint the walls, the ceiling or any other part of the property. He had a different intention. He had entered the house with the intent to commit a felony, which is something for which a person should not get a suspended sentence. He was breaking the law with intent. Furthermore, the victim then found that he could have been charged with committing a crime by defending himself. The Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 has already been passed and should have applied in this case, but it does not. I will have more to say on that in my short response.

See this speech in context