Vol. 459 No. 4
32 Mr. Kirk asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has for a review of the law in relation to householders who find themselves having to confront an intruder, find themselves with personal injury claim incurred during a robbery in view of the spiralling crime levels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16063/95]
Legislation which was passed earlier this year — the Occupiers' Liability Act, 1995 — contains a provision to the effect that, where a person enters premises for the purpose of committing an offence, or commits an offence while there, the occupier will not be liable for injury or damage unintentionally caused to that person unless a court determines otherwise in the interests of justice. That Act governs the liability which an occupier of premises may have in relation to dangers due to the state of the premises only.
Where it is an act by the householder which gives rise to a claim, the discharge of a shotgun, for example, the matter is largely governed by common law principles. In broad terms, the use of force is lawful for the necessary defence of oneself, of others or of property but the force used in such circumstances must be reasonable and in any action for damages it would be for the courts to determine, having regard to the facts of the matter, whether it was or was not appropriate to impose any liability on such a householder.
I have no immediate plan to change the civil law in this area and, indeed, any change along the lines of restricting court access in such cases could well be problematic given that the right to litigate or to have access to the courts is a personal right which is guaranteed under the Constitution.
