March 2007 - Operators need to wary of the law when defending themselves against thieves and attackers. ANDY MOORE explains why...

Defending yourself, your vehicle and your property has never been more important as high levels of crime hit the UK's road freight industry. According to the Road Haulage Association there are more than 40,000 truck crimes a year, with about 3,000 vehicles stolen that are never recovered.  The sector is fraught with cases of hijackers and thieves using force to overpower drivers.

Last February, in the UK's biggest ever robbery, gunmen stolee £50, from a Securitas depot in kent. The ganf tied up 15 members of staff before making off with the cash. They took the depot manager's wife and son as hostages, forcing the manager to let them into the high-security compound.

But how far can operators and drivers legally defend their bases and trucks from attackers? The concept of defence exists both at common law and by statue (see panel). But while vitims are entitled to defend themselves, the term "reasonable force" is open to interpretation.

Simon Leila is manaaging director of 360 Defence, which specialises in training for counter terrorism, self defence and "asset protection". He believes that "reasonable force" can de defined as taking physical action in moderation: "Drivers are legally allowed to use pre-emptive strikes if they are in fear of their life or being injured. If someone is pulling a gun on you, you don't wait to be shot."

He adds that if someone has good reason to believe an attacker is carrying a knife or gun, he can legally use a pre-emptive strike even if he doesn't actually see the weapon:"There is a fine line when using self-defence to protect yourself - don't go over the top by making repeated attacks, causing injury or even death. However, if an individual has substantial reason to believe that he will be killed, he is legally within his rights to use deadly force."

Leila explains that reasonable force bcomes excessive when the defender might kill or wound someone without sufficent cause. While carrying a gun or knife is illegal, he says there is some degree or flexability for a person to use their fists or feet to fend off attackers.

Leila stresses that while drivers are entitled to use reasonable force, they should try to avoid conflict and life threatening situations where possible. He points out that a lorry and its load are replaceable ;a driver's life is not.

Citizens arrest

Victims who are confident they can overthrow a threat can carry out a citizens arrest. The law provides general powers that allow "any person" to make a citizen's arrest under certain circumstances. These are broadly covered by three parts of the law:

• Arrest for an "indictable offence" under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
• Arrest of persons committing, or about to commit, a "breach of the peace" under common law.
• Use of reasonable force to prevent crime or arrest offenders or persons unlawfully at large under the Criminal Law Act 1967.

A high-profile example of someone who used "unreasonable force" in the eyes of the law was Norfolf farmer Tony Martin who shot two burglars who broke into his farmhouse in 1999.One of the burglars who broke into his farmhouse, Fred Barras, was killed are breaking into the house: his accomplice, Brendan Fearon, was injured. Martin was convicted of murder, but after spending 18 months in jail his conviction was reduced to manslaughter and his sentence was to five years.

In March 2005 a lorry driver was run over and seriously injured after he tried to stop a thief escaping in his truck from the Tame Valley Industrial Estate in Tamworth,Staffs. The driver jumped onto the back of his revovery vehicle as it was driven away but ws thrown off and injured when the truck drove over his arm.

Another legal are of concern to operators is the threat of legal actions if a tresspasser is injured by a security device installed on their premises or vehicle. The Occupiers' Liability Acit 1984 sers out the duty if care owner to people who were not invited ot permitted on private land. Operators owe trespassers some duty of care if :

• They know there is a danger and know that people may be in (or come into) the vicinity of the danger - or if they have reasnable grounds for believing this to be so.
• The risk is one against which they might reasonably be expected to offer some protection

 Where these citeria apply, operators have to take reasonable care that people do not suffer injury on their land. They might be able to discharge this duty of care by warning people about a daner (eg. with a notice) but this may not be enough.

Tim Culpin, partner of Aaron & Partners solicitors, believes operators can use security devices provided they display adequate warning signs or notices: "If an intruder injured himself on some barbed wrire or an electric fence because it was invisible or there were no warning signs, he could probably claim against an operator in the civil courts. "

Culpin advises that trespassers can sue for compensation for any long-term impact on their health or quality of life. Brendan Fearon, the accomplice shot in the attempted burglary, was allowed to sue for £100,000 in damages aftr he alledged his injuries stopped him from working, affected his sex life and ruined his hobby of martial arts.

PANEL - How far can you go ?

Under common law a person can use reasonable force to: 

• Defend himself from attack
• Prevent an attack on another person
• Defend his property.

In addition to the common law defence, section 3 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (the statutory defence) provides that: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in prevention of crime, or in effeting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."