“A Queenslander’s home is their castle” and they should be able to use “whatever force necessary” to protect themselves against intruders.
That’s according to a controversial petition from the Katter’s Australian party MP Nick Dametto to enact “castle law”, which has gained more than 36,000 signatures in support of importing the self-defence doctrine from the US that allows people to kill intruders threatening their homes.
Experts say the proposed legislation could have unintended consequences but the issue has triggered debate in the sunshine state ahead of the October election.
The castle law bill was introduced by Dametto earlier this month and is now being considered by a parliamentary committee.
It would allow homeowners to use deadly force “to protect themselves, others within the premises and their property” when faced with an intruder.
Queensland law currently states that a person may only use force that is “reasonably necessary”.
Home intruder laws have long been controversial in Queensland. In 1995, a man was cleared over the attempted murder of an intruder the year before.
At the time, the Queensland opposition said it would toughen up the law in favour of homeowners – a move which had the Wayne Goss-led Labor government shouting “rednecks” – according to a Courier-Mail article.
Decades later the issue has reared its head again after the high-profile murder of Emma Lovell in a violent home invasion on Boxing Day in 2022.
The KAP petition has reignited the debate, arguing that the law currently “fails to adequately protect victims from prosecution following the act of defending themselves or others” against home intruders.
“The law does not protect victims of crime and forces them to second-guess their actions when faced with a split-second, life-threatening situation,” the petition states. “Good laws should be in place to protect good people.”
But the president of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, Michael Cope, said the proposed legislation could have “unintended consequences”.
“I wonder whether people breaking into houses will just think they can do what they like to me, so why shouldn’t I do what I like to them?” he told Guardian Australia.
“Our position is that there has to be a limit on the use of force … just because they’re in your house, in our view, does not authorise you to kill the person.”
Cope said the concept of “reasonable force” is standard in common law.
“The whole concept of self-defence involves assessing … [issues such as] what level of force they used. The courts quite often have to go into detailed assessments of who did what and when,” he said.
“All courts have to use a rubric to determine, basically setting a community standard … about what people are entitled to do, and there’s nothing unusual about it.”
The criminologist and Griffith University professor Silke Meyer said she had concerns the introduction of castle law could encourage people to arm themselves.
“I worry that this promotion of the right to defend yourself, fuelled by the fear of crime narrative … will increase households considering the need to be armed,” she said.
Meyer said an armed intruder is often familiar with using knives and similar weapons whereas the average person is not.
“As a result, home occupiers may be at greater risk of being harmed in the process of trying to use weapons to defend themselves,” she said.
“I think this bill and the conversations surrounding it …. encourages people to be ready to defend their home at all costs.
“I believe [this] is an approach that may create greater harm than protection.”
The Queensland premier, Steven Miles, said in April that the government would assess the KAP proposal.
“In the first instance we would encourage people to ensure that their home is safe,” Miles said.
“And then there are appropriate measures that are able to take if they are a victim of crime.”
