THE Appeal Court judges who ruled that a pensioner must pay £4,000 damages to the burglar he shot are disturbingly out of tune with both natural justice and common sense.

Ted Newbury, aged 83, was protecting a brick shed on the allotment he has tended for 50 years at Ilkeston, Derbyshire, when he fired inside the building through a hole in the door. As a result, Mark Revill, one of two intruders, lost much of the use of his right arm. Mr Newbury was cleared of a wounding charge but Revill pursued a civil action.

We are baffled and appalled that he succeeded. In a chilling example of Orwellian 'doublespeak', Lord Justice Neill says "an occupier cannot treat a burglar as an outlaw'. We would like Mr Justice Neill to define what an outlaw is if he is not someone acting outside the law.

Another appeal judge, Mr Justice Millett, added that violence may be met with violence, but this must not exceed what is reasonable. Perhaps Mr Justice Millett would explain how a terrified 83-year-old, outnumbered two to one by a pair of villains, is meant to interpret the word 'reasonable'.

Clearly it would be wrong to sanction the shooting on site of all burglars. However, we believe Mr Newbury has been dealt rough justice by their Lordships of Appeal.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.