I feel no sympathy for the burglar killed by a pensioner – here’s why

The case of Richard Osborn-Brooks, the 78-year-old who got into a struggle with 37-year-old Henry Vincent which resulted in the death of the burglar, inspired sympathy for the pensioner who successfully defended himself and his home.

This was my instinctual response, based on an utter revulsion at the crime of burglary, a heinous act which carries with it very dangerous risks for the perpetrators and the victims. A risk Henry Vincent took that night and for which he paid the price.

Police described it as a tragedy, but I felt not a jot of sympathy for the man who chose to invade the home of a fellow citizen. The flowers laid outside the house he burgled are a bizarre expression of bereavement. An intimidated Mr Osborn-Brooks fears recriminations.

There was only one victim here. Osborn-Brooks was woken in the middle of the night along with his 76-year-old wife and forced downstairs by Vincent, who was armed with a screwdriver. Vincent’s accomplice, meanwhile, rifled through the property upstairs. It is easy to imagine how Osborn-Brooks must have feared for his safety and the safety of his wife.

A card on the flowers say Mr Vincent had a ‘heart of gold’, I can’t help but sneer. Oh yes, a career criminal from a family of career criminals, a prolific burglar who targeted pensioners with previous convictions for extortionate con tricks. What a guy, yes, he might stick you with a screwdriver, but he was a “loving” person. I can’t help but thinking humanity is not diminished by his loss.

Still, despite this the instinctual revulsion one feels at the perpetrator, living in a civilised society requires us all to constrain our immediate emotional response. The reaction to the arrest of Mr Osborne-Brooks was widespread indignation and resentment of the police. This is understandable when expressed by the victim’s family and friends, but when the outrage begins to spread among the public it’s important that the media and politicians rise above this.

The Sun immediately launching a populist campaign to ‘demand an end to the murder probe into hero OAP’ was irresponsible. For Sir Christopher Chope MP – who sits on the Home Affairs Committee – to stoke public outrage further was foolish. He called the arrest ‘unwarranted’ and after the release without charge of Mr Osborn-Brooks he echoed the sneers of the man on the street: “It is a sad reflection that it has required the force of the press and public opinion to reach this decision.”

This is ludicrous. We live under the rule of law, thus there is due process to follow and when a man is stabbed and killed this, of course, must be properly investigated. The incident must be carefully considered and reflected upon. Until the facts are established nothing is clear cut.

A man was reduced to acting as a savage in response to an act of barbarism. The facts were analysed by the police, and prosecutors asked questions with an open mind with a lawyer present to represent the arrested man. The decision was reached that in this case the act of violence was a proportionate act of self-defence. This is what it means to live in a civilised society.

We should be pleased that the law regarding self defence in the home is functioning well. Investigators examined the case and accepted that the response was proportionate, considering the fear and adrenaline of the moment and the intrusive act by the burglar. Perhaps a case like this can bring clarity and act as a deterrent to prevent other people committing acts of burglary. Therein, however, lies a deeper problem that cases such at this highlight.

One of the reasons these cases invoke such passion amongst the public is that they don’t feel sure they can rely on the police or the courts when it comes to burglary. Little wonder given the repeated statements which imply that the police no longer consider burglary a serious crime.

In 2015 Sara Thornton, head of the National Police Chiefs Council, warned the public that they shouldn’t expect a quick response when are the victims of burglary. “We need to move from reacting to some of those traditional crimes to think about focusing on threat and harm and risk and protecting the public,” she said.

This is such a wrongheaded attitude. Burglary is a serious threat and comes with great harm and risk. To invade someone’s home is a serious violation of their freedom and always brings with it the risk of violence. It’s an implicitly aggressive act which causes a great deal of distress and long term psychological damage.

Compounding the problem is the fact that burglars often don’t face jail time until they have repeated the offence multiple times, by which time they are seasoned criminals. Often, they are then given relatively short sentences which do nothing to deter further criminality and contribute to their recidivism.

I will never forget how my former soft liberal sensibilities were challenged when I volunteered for a social care charity and came across prolific offenders who had committed multiple acts of theft and burglary and received only cautions and community orders until finally being sentenced to prison and getting out within months. Their contempt for the law was clear. Contempt for the law breeds recidivism in offenders and mistrust among the law abiding.

The ideological belief that the police need to move on from ‘old fashioned’ crime pre-dates austerity, government spending constraint, so it cannot be entirely blamed on cuts. It’s a folly that seriously undermines public trust in the police. It lies at the root of the visceral reaction against the arrest of Richard Osborn-Brooks.