TONY MARTIN
The case R v Martin ( 2001)
Tony Martin lived alone on an isolated farm called bleak house.
The farm was dilapidated and appeared to be derelict. The farm was subject to numerous break-
ins. On the night of August 20th 1999 Freddie Barras ( 16 years old) and Brendan Fearon ( aged 30)
broke into at the farm. Tony Martin armed with a 12 bore shut gun went downstairs and fired
indiscriminately at where he thought the disturbance came from.
He shot both the intruders, killing barres by a gunshot wound to the back. Barras died, Fearon was
injured while escaping.
In January 2000 Fearon admitted to conspiring to burgle Martin’s farmhouse, and was sentenced to 3
year’s imprisonment.
Martin was charged with the murder of Barras and the attempted murder of
Fearon.
Martin was found guilty of murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. At his trial his plea of self
defense was rejecter by the jury and he was convicted of murder.
ON APPEAL
Martin’s murder conviction was replaced by manslaughter, and in July 2003 he was released.
He appealed on the grounds that his personality disorder should be taken into account in
assessing whether he has used reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence.
Whilst the personality disorder could not be considered for the purposes of selfdefence, it did amount
to an abnormality of the end which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the killing.
Since the psychiatric reports had not been
considered by the jury his conviction for murder was quashed.
THE PRESS
Fearon received legal aid to sue Martin for the injury sustained. Later dropped the case. For the
tabloid press, Martin became a folk hero, and the Law’s
commission’s paper, which simply followed up an earlier analysis of illegality in the context of contract
and trusts, became identified as a Trojan horse for politically correct and human rights inspired reform
inimical to the silent majority of lawabiding people.
MAIN POINTS TO BEAR IN MIND:
Mr Martin used a firearm which he knew he was not entitled to have in a manner which was wholly
unjustified.
Mr Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself and his home, but the jury were
surely correct in coming to their judgment that Mr Martin was not acting reasonably in shooting one
of the intruders, who happened to be 16, dead and seriously injuring the other.
In the Martin case, there was no threat as such to the life of Tony Martin, but there was a possible
threat to his property. The force used by T.M. was far too excessive to allow him to plead self-
defence.
EXCESSIVE FORCE
- SECTION 3 OF THE CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1967: A person may use such force as is reasonable in the
circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders
or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large
Any possible conflict between this and the rules of the common law is provided for in section 3
subsection
1 of the act
- subsection 1 above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a
purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.
EXCESSIVE FORCE
