News, views and top stories in your inbox. Don't miss our must-read newsletter Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Householders have the right to take tough action and use "disproportionate force" against intruders in their homes as long as they reasonably believe such a high level of force is necessary, the High Court has ruled.

Senior judges declared the so-called "householder defence" - as strengthened by the Coalition Government - was not incompatible with European human rights laws.

They stressed in a landmark ruling they were not giving individuals "carte blanche" to use any degree of force to protect themselves and their loved ones.

But force was not necessarily unreasonable and unlawful "simply because it is disproportionate - unless it is grossly disproportionate".

Read more:

(Image: Getty)

The judges rejected a human rights challenge brought by the family of an alleged intruder who was left in a coma after being confronted by a householder in Gillingham, Kent, at about 3am on December 15 2013.

Police investigators found "householder B", had used a headlock to restrain Denby Collins - but the prosecuting authorities decided not to charge B with any offence.

The Collins family are confident that, had the incident occurred before the recent change in the law, B and possibly other members of his family, would have been charged and prosecuted for unlawful wounding or another offence of violence.

President of the Queen's Bench Division Sir Brian Leveson and Mr Justice Cranston used the case to give guidance to judges and juries throughout England and Wales on how to deal with similar cases.

The householder defence was introduced by Parliament when the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was used to insert a new Section 76(5A) into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Peter Collins, Denby's father, applied for a declaration that Section 76(5A) was incompatible with Article 2 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to respect for life.

But both judges rejected his application.

In a ruling on Friday, Sir Brian declared: "In the circumstances I conclude that the criminal law of England and Wales on self defence in householder cases, taken as a whole, fulfils the framework obligation under Article 2(1).

But the judge warned: "The headline message is and remains clear: a householder will only be able to avail himself of the defence if the degree of force he used was reasonable in the circumstances as he believed them to be."

Agreeing with the president, Mr Justice Cranston said the "plain words" of the section read in their legal context "mean that in householder cases the force used in self-defence is not unreasonable simply because it is disproportionate - unless, of course, it is grossly disproportionate".

The Ministry of Justice welcomed the ruling. A spokesman said: "Being confronted by an intruder in your own home can be a terrifying ordeal.

"That is why the last Government strengthened the law to give householders greater protection to defend themselves from intruders.

"We welcome this judgment, which confirms that the provisions under the Crime & Courts Act 2013 are compatible with our obligations under human rights legislation."

Later the Collins family said they were "disappointed" but considering an appeal.

In a statement released by their solicitors, Hickman & Rose, they said: "Denby Collins has been in a coma since December 2013, having been put in a neck lock and restrained on the floor by a householder who claimed to believe that Denby was an intruder into his home.

"Denby's parents are confident that, had the incident in which Denby was subjected to life-threatening force occurred nine months earlier, then the householder - and quite possibly at least one of the other four persons involved in the restraint - would have been charged and prosecuted for unlawful wounding or another offence of violence."

The statement added: "Denby's family continue to believe that the current law insufficiently protects a member of the public from extreme violence being used in self-defence where, for example, the person is left in a coma or is killed because they're treated, rightly or wrongly, as an intruder into someone's home.

"They continue to hold the view that it should be sufficient for the CPS to prove that force used by anyone in self-defence is disproportionate for a person to be convicted for an act of violence of this type."