No licence to kill: Burden of Stand Your Ground

Attorney General John Jeremie, SC, in Parliament. -

STAND-your-ground legislation designed to protect people from the threat of home invasion does not give them free license to kill anyone who enters their property.

The limitations which prevent this are outlined in the Home Invasion (Self Defence and Defence of Property) Bill 2025 which is posted on the Ministry of the Attorney General and Legal Affairs website.

They include homeowners being under the influence of drugs when they threaten or use force against an intruder and homeowners threatening or using force against law enforcement officers executing their duties.

Other limitations include the nature of the force or threat being used against the occupant; the extent to which that force was imminent; whether a weapon, firearm or explosive device was used in the home invasion; the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties; the nature and proportionality of the occupant’s response to the threat; and whether the occupant did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose.

Stand-your-ground legislation and easier access to legally issued firearms were the UNC’s main campaign promises with respect to tackling crime ahead of the general election.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has promised the legislation will be laid in Parliament in September.

The objective of the bill is to to establish the offence of home invasion.

In that context, the bill provides that “a person has no duty to retreat when operating in self– defence or defence of his property; to provide that a person may use defensive force, including deadly force, to protect himself or his property.”

Clause 6 of the bill establishes home invasion as a specific offence and sets out its parameters.

This will include the unlawful entry by a person, the home invader, into a dwelling house with the intent to use force, or threaten the imminent use of force, on occupants of the dwelling house.

The offence also caters for instances in which a home invader “intentionally causes any injury to occupants of a dwelling house including grievous bodily harm, grievous sexual assault, rape and death.”

A home invasion may involve a home invader stealing, damaging or destroying property in the dwelling house with or without the use of intimidation, threats or violence.

The bill also states a home invasion may involve the use of a weapon, a firearm or an explosive device in order to cause grievous bodily harm, permanent disability, permanent disfigurement or death to any person in a dwelling house.

The bill makes allowance for aggravating factors, “where a home invasion is carried out by a member of a gang, a participant in an organised criminal activity, or in the presence of a child, senior citizen, differently abled or vulnerable person.”

Clause 7 of the bill provides that the occupant of a dwelling house has no duty to retreat from a home invader and has the right to stand his ground when acting in self-defence.

This would arise in circumstances where the occupant believes, on reasonable grounds, that force was being used or threatened by the home invader, or that the occupant’s life or that of another person was in immediate danger or threat of danger.

In order to justify self-defence, Clause 7 states, “The occupant must also believe that his actions were necessary and reasonable to defend or protect himself, or another person, from the use or threat of force, and that the defensive force used was proportionate to the threat he honestly believed to exist.”

In determining whether the defensive force used by a homeowner to protect himself or herself or famiy members against an intruder was reasonable, the bill states the court must take several factors into account.

This would include the nature of the force or threat; whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon, firearm or explosive device; the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident; the nature and proportionality of the occupant’s response to the use or threat of force; and whether the occupant did what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose.

For the purpose of self-defence during a home invasion, the bill states,”Use of deadly force may be justified where an occupant reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death, grievous bodily harm, grievous sexual assault or rape.”

Clause 8 of the bill makes allowances for a person’s right to defend his or her property.

This section states, “For the purpose of defence of property during a home invasion, the use of deadly force may be justified where an occupant reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent or remove a home invader from the dwelling house, or to protect his property or that of another person.”

But the legislation places legal limitations where self-defence and defence of property can be used by citizens to justify why those chose to stand their ground.

These limitations are found in Section 10 of the bill. The Law Reform Commission also referred to these limitations in a policy paper that was attached to the legislation.

The commission said, “The bill would provide for instances in which an occupant of a dwelling house may not be able to rely on self-defence or defence of property where a home invasion has occurred.”

The exceptions where the use of self-defence or defence of property do not justify standing your ground include if “a person against whom force is used or threatened has the right to be in, or is an occupant in the dwelling house.” This could arise in situations where someone is illegally squatting inside someone else’s property.

Self-defence or defence of property do not apply in cases where “the degree of force used by the occupant is grossly disproportionate.”

Should the occupant of a dwelling house be engaged in criminal activity or is using that house to further criminal activity, the threat or use of force for standing your ground for self-defence or defence of property is legally forbidden.

Stand your ground is inapplicable if the occupant of a property using or threatening the use of force knows or should have known “that the person entering the dwelling house was a law enforcement officer acting in the lawful execution of his duties.”

The bill also states standing your ground for self-defence or defence of property is not justified in law where “the mental faculties of an occupant who uses force were, at the time of the alleged offence, substantially affected by the voluntary consumption of drugs.”

The legislation defines “drug” as “alcohol or any other substance that is capable, either alone or in combination with other substances, of influencing mental functioning.”

In a WhatsApp comment on August 18, former commissioner of police Gary Griffith said this part of the legislation shatters the belief that people have a free licence to kill anyone who enters their home.

“That is important. That there totally neutralises the perception by some that this law is a licence to kill.”

Griffith said, “That in summary will show there are limitations.”

He added, “It doesn’t mean that once you are in your house you can just shoot anybody that you want...kill anyone you want...whether it’s a law enforcement officer...whether you are involved in criminal activity...whether you are involved in corrupt activity...if the person is totally unarmed.”

Griffith said the law is drafted in such a way to ensure that people cannot just kill other people in cold blood “because the persons are in your home.”

At a stand-your ground consultation at Debe Junction on August 5. Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister Darrell Allahar said, “This legislation is not a licence to kill.” He also said the legislation was not linked to easier access for legal firearms.

“This stands by itself because not everybody has a firearm...not everybody could use a firearm...not everybody wants a firearm.”

Allahar repeated, “That’s not the policy to give every single person a firearm.”

The bill requires a three-fifths majority for passage in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.