View Full Version : Burglar SUES Tony Martin

14th May 2003, 19:27
When is this daftness going to stop????

A burglar shot and injured by Norfolk farmer Tony Martin is attempting to sue him for damages.

Brendon Fearon was wounded during a break-in at Martin's isolated home in Emneth Hungate, in August 1999.

The 33-year-old claims his injuries, including a leg wound, have affected his ability to enjoy sex and martial arts.

He also says he has suffered post-traumatic stress.

Fearon, who was jailed for his part in the raid on Martin's home and has more than 30 convictions, has been given legal aid to launch his claim.

It is believed he hopes to sue the jailed farmer for 15,000 in loss of earnings, because of his inability to find work.

Last month a judge at Nottingham County Court rejected his application saying there was insufficient evidence.

Fearon's solicitors say they now have the proof to back his claims.

14th May 2003, 19:49
:mad: :mad: :mad: No words are sufficient to descibe this. If this case even gets to court, I will seriously consider moving away from this country. Lock him and his partner up and throw away the key.

Ooops...forgot the other one's dead. We'll only need one cell then. :E

14th May 2003, 20:00
15,000 loss of earnings- or loss of swag????

14th May 2003, 20:01
Who in the legal aid board approved this funding?

They should be ashamed of themselves and as for the creature that practices law and dares to call himself a human........a peasant acting on behalf of a peasant. They are both thieves in their own way.

Another thought, why don't residents of Norfolk or wherever this sub-human lived apply for legal aid to start a class action against this proven thief for the cost of door locks, window locks and the trauma of not sleeping at night after hearing sounds outside?

About 15,000 each should cover it.

tony draper
14th May 2003, 20:11
The farmer should be sued for not tilting the barrel up about 15 degrees.

simon brown
14th May 2003, 21:12
Unfortunately this is a sad indictment of our illustrious legal profession. If i were a solicitor I wouldnt touch the case on moral grounds, but hey business is business....

Hopefully the judges will overrule this pathetic attempt at compensation. I would suggest the injuries sustained prevent him getting his leg over the window cill of the houses he burgles.
I presume the defence will attempt to parade various young ladies, whom will be coached to say " well your honor post shooting Brendens a crap shag"

It would be interesting to see what would have happened if Fearon shot and injured Martin. Would Martin have enjoyed the same treatment if he could no longer run his farm....

What i want to know is what example are the legal profession setting in instances such as this when WE need protecting from the likes of Fearon.

Surely the law should take the view that if you rob or attempt to rob someones property, you do so at your own risk and if injuries are sustained as a result of your criminal activity then tough shit.

If I go out get completely drunk, drive my car and am convicted, can I expect compensation because i lost my job as, say, lorrydriver. In other words can I be compensated for comitting a crime? The legal profession by implication are saying you can be compensated.

If this farce isnt overturned, and quickly, we will have burglars suing householders because they tripped over little Johnnys rollerskate in the driveway and sustained an injury.

I would like to think this country is run by sane educated individuals, but am seriously having my doubts now...

Anyay I'm off to rob someones house, and will expect compensation if the video I steal doesnt work or comes without the instructions

Any of you legal eagles out there feel you could morally help Fearon in his attempts at compensation?
:mad: :mad: :mad:

14th May 2003, 21:21
If i were a solicitor I wouldnt touch the case on moral grounds


(Wipes tears from cheeks, holds ribs and breathes deeply)
Phew! Thanks Simon, I needed that.

Sorry, lawyers, I know that's a cheap shot, but oh how it tickled my funny bone....... sorry, but I feel another fit of the giggles coming on. :hmm:


A Sun Reader

simon brown
14th May 2003, 21:31

Believe it or not I know one or two solicitors whom HAVE turned down cases for those reasons....as one put it "they are as guilty as the puppy sat next to the poo whom has a track record of shitting in the kitchen"

I wouldnt admit to reading the Sun if I was you.. although a copy was occasioned beneath my chips the other day

soft strong and very absorbent thats yer soaraway Sun


14th May 2003, 21:38
This is absoutley pathetic! This piece of sh!t deserves nothing! It makes me mad that people even have the nerve to try and pull something like this off, and it makes me even more mad that the law system even allows it! The farmer should be congradulated by the authorities and the stupid moronic robber should be locked up 10 years! There is no justice in this country, murderers are getting out after 5 years! When it should be 50 years without parole!

14th May 2003, 22:03
I know of a case in AMS where 4 young brats tried to extort money from a guy for "protecting" his car (i.e. leaning against it). The guy refused where the punks started to pee against the car, began to remove the mirrors and trashing the lights. Unfortunately for the hooligans the guy happens to be a martial arts expert and he had 2 of them down before they even knew what happened. Of course they fleed the scene of the crime subsequently.

A week later the car owner was indicted by one of the punks for bodily harm and sentenced with 2,500 Euro fine and 3 months suspended.

Also I know of some law cases of jewellers shooting a criminal who are robbing their shop at gun point.

I wonder, under the present circumstances, could we call this a pre-emptive strike?

George Dicer
14th May 2003, 22:55
I heartily agree with every word of this thread. I was very sad to read in The Times a few weeks ago that Tony Martin had been denied early release because he had not shown remorse!!!!!
What is this country coming to . The legal system is completely bonkers. Or am I missing something?

Biggles Flies Undone
14th May 2003, 23:18
maninblack - that is a great suggestion.

It's about time the rest of us found out how to work the system to our best advantage instead of letting this scum take the money and laugh at us.

14th May 2003, 23:38
and this country goes even further in the direction of the dogs. :(

Its no wonder everyone wants to leave for... well any where seems to be a better option.

14th May 2003, 23:42
It's a shame Tony's aim wasn't as good as it was for his scumbag mate.

Mind you, he would have got an even bigger sentence, British justice really sucks at times doesn't it??

tony draper
14th May 2003, 23:47
I wouldn't worry to much, twenty years from now if the luvvies have their way, those of us left will probably be living under Sharia Law.

15th May 2003, 00:02
I was once told by a Maltese doctor that people in this country (uk) are far too obsessed with their human rights, and I absolutley agree with him! When someone does something like this scumbag did then thier human right to claim compensation should be withdrawn, the way it would be in other countries who have their bloody heads screwed on properly!

15th May 2003, 00:02
Too many bleeding heart liberals holding important positions of power.

15th May 2003, 00:04
So Drapes you mean like wimmin would have to do the washing up and you could divorce them in less time than it takes to bite yer toenails? Scousers would all have their hands chopped off and you could watch luvvies being executed at the weekends?

Dosn't sound too bad to me.... :E

15th May 2003, 00:10
Probably a stupid question, but would Tony Martin legally be able to sue the Burglar for Post-traumatic stress, loss of livelihood etc?

15th May 2003, 00:14
You know how this whole thing got started? Mouth-breathers don't sue, but they do watch lots of satellite TV, and they will have been bombarded with adverts like "have you been injured at work, or tripped and fell on a pavement, or cleaned your teeth with a razor blade and accidentally slit your throat? Vampire Compensation Direct can help you, no win no fee blah blah blah." So they ring up, and Vampire Compensation are on the case! They'll sue for millions! Of course, Mouthbreather will only see 200 quid at the end, but he didn't look at what he was putting his X to, and anyway, the legislation enabling no win / no fee in this country was only ever intended to make grotesquely rich lawyers obscenely rich.

simon brown
15th May 2003, 00:17
If there were a few more jurors with the opinions expressed on this forum, a few more pieces of shite would be doing quality time.

Members of the legal profession whom embark on these "bleeding heart defences" should be named and shamed and put out of business or forced to go into nothing more then house conveyancing

15th May 2003, 00:25
Cherie 'DP' Blair is the worst of the feckers.....

Mac the Knife
15th May 2003, 01:25
Gee fellas, you know my views on this matter, but on the other hand the law has determined that Martin acted illegally by shooting this creep.

Given this, is he not then perfectly entitled to sue Martin for pain and suffering caused by his illegal act? Presumably Martin is also entitled to sue Fearon (though I doubt that he'd get legal aid).

A silly situation. There must be a vast accumulation of case law which defines the rights of intruders and householders in this situation. The law is there, it just needs to be spelled out so that we can all understand. If it emerges that the pendulum has swung too much in favour of the burglar then the law can be altered. The UK is still a democracy of sorts, in spite of what people say and laws can be changed by means of petitions, referendums and acts of parliament.

So find out the facts and if necessary, collect signatures, lobby your MP and get the law changed rather than sitting on your asses moaning about "Them"!

15th May 2003, 01:26
Unfortunately I have to say that I believe the crooked scum certainly has the right to sue Mr Martin for the injuries he sustained under UK law (although I don't think he should get a penny).

However, I also believe that the law in the UK should be changed so that householders will be entitled to use considerable force to defend themselves in their own home and to prevent crimes against their own property. It is worthwhile noting that in countries with high percentages of gun ownership don't get "Home Intrusions" as the crooks are very likely to end up eating a 38.

Tony Martins real problem is that he did not play the legal game as adroitly as the criminals - why is Tony Martins banged up? because he won't say he feels remorse. It is a sad fact that to get justice in this country you need to perjure yourself to get it.

15th May 2003, 01:41
I have recently been burgled and of course insurance are not going to pay out.

However I had already decided to sue the burglar, who hopefully is the one the cops got two days later, for any unrecovered losses and personal expenses incurred due to said burglary. I will now add the cost of the stolen items.

I am assuming proof is less onorous in a civil court than in a criminal court.

I also do not expect the said villain will actually pay up, however I will be interested to see if the courts will then persue him for contempt if he doesnt.

I think if everybody took this action against their friendly neighbourhood thief it might make the judiciary wake up to the way the public feel about the law.

It is for us as well as for them.

15th May 2003, 09:21
He is sueing for loss of earnings because he can't find a job! What job would that be then?

Anyone care to put his CV together for him?:} :E

15th May 2003, 15:02
Simon Brown wrote;

If there were a few more jurors with the opinions expressed on this forum, a few more pieces of shite would be doing quality time.

Dont worry mate, I have my service coming up in a couple of weeks, I will see what I can do!

Bluskis Wrote;

I have recently been burgled and of course insurance are not going to pay out.

May I ask why not, that is quite rare these days. Have you complained to the General Insurance Standards Council?

Anthony Carn
15th May 2003, 15:24
There's been a suggestion that we lobby our MP. Valid suggestion. But how effective is that ?.

I sense a growing dissilusionment with the whole system of "democratic" government. Too much turning of blind eyes. Too much self interest in government. Too few alternatives to the current shower in power. A feeling of helplessness.

If democracy ruled, then Tony Martin would be free, with a large financial compensation in the bank and the scumbag intruder would be locked away in a minimum cost prison (and [email protected] the conditions).

("mouthbreather" - love that phrase !)

15th May 2003, 19:33
Tony should take better aim next time, maybe he'll get both the fcukers and save the lawyers a lot of time and us a lot of aggro.

simon brown
15th May 2003, 20:36
Anthony Carn states

There's been a suggestion that we lobby our MP. Valid suggestion. But how effective is that ?.

I say this would be totally pointless as most of them are members, or have been members of the legal profession. A conflict of interests I think.

I suspect some lawyers take on dodgy cases in the vain hope they can get their client off on some minor transgression of Police procedures..

15th May 2003, 20:47
Anthony Carn,

If democracy ruled, then Tony Martin would be free.................

I can only assume this means that you believe the majority of UK citizens believe that Tony Martin was unfairly imprisoned. This may well be the case, but from this I also take it that your definition of democracy is that the wishes of the majority are what we should build our society on, and I have some rather large problems with that. Rather like freedom of speech, democracy is a vastly misused term. We here in this micro-society of Pprune (most of us anyway) have learned freedom of speech is not an absolute, despite Mr Jefferson's noble thoughts on the matter. Neither should it be.

Asking every member of our society what he or she thinks of a particular idea before legislating it is so fantastically unworkable that a better system was thought up, to wit, that we periodically give an elected group the privilege of making the rules for a specified time. Doesn't mean they can only legislate for things we agree on, (neither should it mean carte blanche to do what they like), it just means that after the specified time elapses, we have the choice of weighing up what they've done and decide if a majority thinks that on balance they haven't fcuked up too badly.

I'll probably get shouted down for this, but I believe that a healthy percentage of the population (in any country, by natural selection) wouldn't know if a train was up them unless it blew its whistle. Your version of democracy would lead to free beer and no tax, but it wouldn't last very long.

Hope I haven't got too much off-topic here, but calls from the the man on the street, which then become the tabloid headlines, need to be treated with extreme caution. Unfortunately neither the ability nor the desire to see both sides of an argument are taught in our schools.

A difficult case, this Tony Martin business, and my sympathies (as a Sun reader :rolleyes: ) probably lean towards yours, but as Mac the Knife stated, the law is the law. I can only ask the people who vote FOR the current government if it means so much to them that they would change their vote if the other side promised to change the law. And for the people who hate the incumbents, imagine your mob were in government and the opposition promised to change the law; would you change your vote? Or is this just another opportunity to rail against the crowd you hate?

simon brown
15th May 2003, 21:12
I think Martin should have been jailed for what he did, after all he took a life( however low and whether a "mouth breather "( great expression)or not)

This thread was about the rights and wrongs of the legal professions' defence of a criminal in a pathetic attempt at compensation, not whether Martin's jail sentence was right or not

However allowing the legal profession to pursue a claim against some one whom was not only trespassing but involved in criminal activity leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. If someone breaks into YOUR house tonight what would YOU do.

There is no definitive law. Stab them once or twice with a kitchen knife to incapacitate them and you should expect to get away with it. Stab them 25 times and kill them, expect a custodial sentence.

The law should be changed so that if someone physically forces entry in to your property, whether merely trespassing, or worse , they can expect NO redress for injuries as a result of their criminal/intended criminal activity whether from the house holder or accident.

15th May 2003, 21:44
Simon, I agree with you. It's also tempting to say that the law should be changed to remove all rights from anybody breaking in to another's property. If they get shot, so be it. Most people would have no sympathy for anyone in that situation.

Unfortunately we have to take into account in a civilized society that laws, however carefully they are framed, are subject to twisting from both sides to maximise their own particular benefit. And there are those among us who would utilize such a framework for their own benefit. Suspect the neighbour of flirting with your wife or worse? Invite him over for a drink, whoops, bang, dead, but I found him breaking in, Your Honour.

If everybody were honest, the legal system would be like the ten commandments, the taxation act would occupy one page, and insurance would be dirt cheap. The fact that all of those concepts are laughable means we should perhaps look at ourselves before decrying the system.

simon brown
15th May 2003, 21:54

Suspect the neighbour of flirting with your wife or worse? Invite him over for a drink, whoops, bang, dead, but I found him breaking in, Your Honour.

a very good point made ....

However some people choose to act outside of civilised societies' laws and deserve to be treated as such as opposed to being treated as a potential cash cow for the legal profession

We, as a society, deserve the criminals we get based on the law & the legal professions methods.

Training Risky
15th May 2003, 23:14
Some good points raised here chaps. If anyone is interested in perusing the debate we had in Mil Forum over Tony Martin's sentence, then have a ganders at: "Still a Major Fraud?"

This was a thread originally discussing the Millionaire trial and the justification for the court case..... and we also discussed the utter shafting Tony Martin received, at length.

Be warned, its about 8 pages long!

Mac the Knife
16th May 2003, 01:22
What a lot of tripe and what a lot of whining wusses!

Anthony Carn and others, I suggest that you have been so spoiled by living in a reasonably good democracy that you wouldn't recognise one if it were shoved up your jacksy. Your suggestion that it is useless to lobby your MP is the sort of pathetic fatalistic defeatism that I thought only to find in Africa - "Eeeeh...! Whati can we do..." - a large part of why Africa is so misruled. If everyone in your fine country has as little faith and participates as little in the democratic process as you seem to do then no wonder the greedy and the crazy are running away with it. Serve you f$%^&$ing well right!

I can assure you that within the democratic framework that you have, if enought people felt strongly enough about the matter the law WOULD be changed. It is rubbish to say that you have to wait for the next general election. If the government resists then general elections can be FORCED and pretty much any legislation you like rammed through by the electorate.

Simon Brown, if you really mean your remark "..totally pointless as most of them are members, or have been members of the legal profession.." then if you value your life, you should be out there at the hustings (or the barricades) fighting to change a corrupt administration.

It is your civic duty to maintain and nourish the freedoms (and the limitations) that your forefathers fought for in a rather more active way than making cynical remarks on PPRuNe.

Finally, it is a lawyer's JOB to provide a defendant with the best possible defence, no matter WHAT he/she may personally think of them. Are you suggesting that lawyers should only defend people who they truly believe to be innocent or that they should allow their personal feelings to interfere with their duty to their client?

"..lawyers take on dodgy cases in the vain [sic.] hope they can get their client off on some minor transgression of Police procedures.." Of course they do. To do anything less would be a dereliction of their duty. If you don't like it then get the police to amend or tighten up their procedures.

Citizens get pretty much the government that they deserve.:*

16th May 2003, 03:57
I can assure you that within the democratic framework that you have, if enought people felt strongly enough about the matter the law WOULD be changed. ... ...pretty much any legislation you like rammed through by the electorate. I don't suppose you'd like to give us an example of when that has ever actually happened ?

Anthony Carn
16th May 2003, 04:05
To respond to some of the reactions to my previous post :

My firm impression is that a massive proportion of UK citizens do indeed believe that Tony Martin has been very badly treated. There is, without doubt, a majority who would see Martin free and Fearon in prison and for the laws relating to defence of one's property to be changed. There are potential problems, for certain, but the current laws are grossly biased in favour of the criminal. This is becoming increasingly true in general ; protect and compensate the criminal, ignore the victim. It is WRONG !

I believe that those in Government and within the Legal System are very well aware of the views of the population regarding the Martin case. Despite that, I don't believe that is sufficient incentive for those in authority to instigate change. A general election result will certainly be unaffected by the Martin case. Those within the Legal System will retain their jobs regardless of their mishandling of the case or reluctance to change the law.

My view regarding the lobbying of ones MP is based upon bitter personal experience. My MP of the time was a Government-line-towing ignoramus. His performance in private industry would see him jobless in short time. He knew that his best chance of a long ride on the gravy train was to behave in this way.

Perhaps we should all meet down in London and demonstrate. That happened recently with regard to the then proposed war in Iraq. On second thoughts, fat lot of good it did.

And all I get is one vote every General Election. Like asking William Tell to split the apple with a twelve bore !

OOPS ! Don't mention twelve bores ! :rolleyes:

Mac the Knife
16th May 2003, 05:02
Grainger. Easypeasy - the idiotic antigun law that was rammed through in the aftermath of Dunblane - thus depriving tens of thousands of sport shooters of a pleasurable and harmless occupation and doing nothing whatsoever to reduce gun crime or looney events (Martin did not have a shotgun license, which contributed considerably to his sentence). A small number of people just pushed hard enough and long enough.

AC - the squeaking wheel gets the oil. I know what it is like to feel hopeless in the face of big administration, but you have to be persistent and insistent. Lobby, write letters, organise petions, go door-to-door, organise demonstrations. If the matter is truly the will of the people then it can be done. In South Africa apartheid fell and in the USSR communism collapsed - neither were democratic countries. If the Iraq demo failed then it was because it reflected only the feelings of a minority. If everyone had really cared there could have been nationwide demonstrations and stoppages that Blair could not have resisted.

16th May 2003, 18:06
Mac: I think that's more an example of knee-jerk legislation rushed through so that the authorities could be "seen to be doing something". It wasn't something forced through against the wishes of a reluctant government.

In fact, sports shooters are voters too: yet the views of those who were actually direcly affected were completely ignored by a government more concerned with PR.

simon brown
16th May 2003, 23:03
Mac the Knife,

OH dear, point missed entirely,

I'll spell it out for you...


Oh by the way the point many of us have been making, is the disgust many of us feel for the greed and mercenary attitude from some sections of the legal profession not democracy per say.

I case you hadnt noticed, all over the world there were HUGE demonstrations opposing the invasion of Iraq. I dont see the Bush or Blair administrations in collapse. They may well do so in future when we all legitimately CAST OUR VOTE

I would also like to point out that I am an active member to the neighbourhood watch , which, at that level means I CAN make a difference. Changing the legal profession is somewhat difficult bearing in mind,the legislators are surprise surprise members of the legal profession. You know,.... the system to which they have a vested interest.the old boy network etc . Solicitors taking advantage of the "system" is NOT corruption its distasteful in my view, thats all.

It is your civic duty to maintain and nourish the freedoms (and the limitations) that your forefathers fought for in a rather more active way than making cynical remarks on PPRuNe.

A somewhat pious attitude if you dont mind me saying so. For cynical Read REALISTIC not some gooey doe eyed idealist

Are you a native South African ? Judging by your vernacular ("Gee Boys")I would suspect you MAY possibly be an American, living in South Africa. If this is the case, then what exactly are you doing for YOUR country at present in terms of civic duty and nourishing the freedoms that your forefathers fought for ?

And while we are on the subject of doing ones duty for ones country, try extolling that virtue to a British pensioner whom fought in the war and are having their already menial pensions cut to the bone and suffering in poverty.Or is that too cynical a remark to make!

Anthony Carn makes a very valid point about the performance and incentives and attitudes of our MPs

Ive a few friends in the legal profession and Ive often argued these points with them. They have stated they wouldnt pursue compensation claims but everyone has a right to defence which I AM PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE with.They have also admitted that some cases are an open and shut guilty case, but are worth pursuing as there MAY be the possibility of the case being thrown out on a technicality, as opposed to putting forward a robust case, even if the evidence is overwhelming such that the accused is guilty. In other words we are not going to put a robust case forward but just go through the motions and may, if lucky, win on a technicality.If you actually read my post you will see I agreed with the jailing of Martin and have NOWHERE advocated that suspected guilty parties should not elligible for quality legal council whether guilty of innocent.

And lastly, from which country do you originate, as I'd love to live there as we could all effect change, our MPs would be dilligent servants with no other business interests or agenda to pursue, there would be no corruption, the trains would run on time, poor performing CEOs of companies would get the sack with no golden handouts etc etc etc.

Oh and a final question for you. I understand that in SA car jacking is rife and some people are putting flame throwers on their vehicles. If an armed man tried to steal your car and you flamed him, I take it you would find it perfectly acceptable behaviour for him to try to sue you for compensation and you would be quite happy for someone to take up his case and possibly win. You would then be agrieved wouldnt you! and in expressing your opinion you wouldnt be expect to be branded a cynic now would you....

And if you dont like hearing us whinging Brits go on about British issues, find another forum from a more idealistic country... if you can find one

Yours Cynically


tony draper
16th May 2003, 23:09
I watched a one of those chat progs this morning on the rights of people to protect their property, they had a lady Barrister on it, I swear to god had I been in that audience I wudda walked up to the silly touchy feely bubble brained luuvie bitch and nutted her,.
Sorry drapes - but too many complaints about "yer turn of phrase" this time, in here and by p-message. So - it's gone. Perhaps now those that copied it for the sake of showing they disliked it, could remove theirs.
Yeah yeah, I know it's Jet Blast, but when you receive a torrent of moans - what can you do?
;) :E

Alty Meter
17th May 2003, 06:02
You've got a good turn of phrase on occasions.
Shame you spoil it saying things like "."
Now it's gone from the post above - probably no need to have it repeated here eh? ;)

dick splash
17th May 2003, 08:17
You've got a good turn of phrase on occasions.
Shame you spoil it saying things like ""

Would have made good television though........
Ditto above.

17th May 2003, 09:23
I'll bet he's not being entirely truthful when he says he feels no remorse, I would imagine the he truthfully feels remorseful that one of them lived. By saying this some people may assume that I think Tony Martin deserves to be sitting in prison, well I don't, if he were a criminal breaking in to someone else's house with the intent of killing someone then I would say he desreves it, but not under these circumstances.
I'd say he's showing a whole lot more common sense and character than those who consider him a criminal by sticking to his beliefs instead of just telling what they want the rest of the public to hear so that they can beat their fists on their chests and proclaim how darn righteous they are.

Yeah, I know, I'm just a loud mouthed violent colonist who isn't as enlightened as some others may feel they are, but I'm still entitled to my own opinion.