Imagine it’s 2 am. You’re asleep with your family when an armed intruder bursts through your back door, threatening your lives.
That was the scenario presented by attorney-at-law Ganesh Saroop on Wednesday as he led consultations on the proposed Home Invasion (Stand Your Ground) Bill, 2024 in Tunapuna.
Saroop, of Freedom Chambers, told residents that under current laws, a homeowner who injures or kills an intruder during a break-in could still be arrested and charged. He explained that the law currently considers whether the homeowner could have retreated instead of using force.
“When you appear in court, the question would be: Did you act reasonably in injuring or killing this person? And in determining reasonableness, the main factor the court considers is whether you could have retreated—even in your own home,” Saroop said.
If the court finds that the intruder could have been avoided, a claim of self-defence may be undermined.
“Is that fair?” he asked the audience.
Saroop said the proposed bill aims to remove the legal duty to retreat and instead enshrine a homeowner’s right to defend temselves, their families, and their property. The legislation would define home invasion as a specific criminal offence and outline when force—including deadly force—can be lawfully used.
“The law will recognise that your home is your castle,” he said. “If you act on instinct, in fear, and in defence of your family, the law will stand beside you, not across from you. You are protected, not punished. The message is clear: if you invade a home in this country, you do so at your own risk.”
However, Saroop emphasised that the bill does not permit the use of deadly force against mere trespassers or in non-threatening situations. Force would only be justified if the homeowner reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent imminent death, serious bodily harm, rape, or sexual assault.
The proposed law does not allow pre-emptive attacks or vigilante justice. It also maintains that deadly force must still be reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances.
Currently, deadly force is only permitted in self-defence or defence of others—not to protect property alone. Under the bill, however, homeowners could use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop or prevent a violent intruder from entering their home.
“The new legislation allows the use of deadly force, such as shooting or chopping, to protect property only if there is a real and imminent threat of danger,” Saroop said.
Clause 9 of the bill extends protection to individuals who assist neighbours during a home invasion. However, it does not shield those who use excessive force or are engaged in criminal activity at the time of the incident. Clause 10 includes safeguards against people who might fabricate home invasions to justify unlawful violence.
While critics argue the bill is unnecessary, Saroop said it represents a significant departure from the Larceny Act and the common law.
“It recognises home invasion as a distinct and serious offence,” he said, “defined as unlawful entry using force, weapons, intimidation, or the commission of grievous crimes such as rape or grievous bodily harm.”
The legislation would introduce aggravating factors for sentencing, including attacks on vulnerable persons or invasions committed by criminal gangs. Penalties could reach up to 25 years in prison and fines of $750,000.
Constitutional considerations
Senior attorney Kelvin Ramkissoon noted that a three-fifths parliamentary majority may be needed if the bill is deemed to infringe on constitutional rights, particularly the right to life under Section 4 of the Constitution. While he said the Government likely has the votes to pass it in the House of Representatives, the Senate remains uncertain.
Still, he does not believe the bill violates fundamental rights.
“You have to balance the criminal’s right to life with the homeowner’s right to defend their family,” he said. “In England’s Collins case, the court held that such provisions did not breach the European Convention on Human Rights, which closely mirrors our own Constitution.”
During a Q&A session, one resident asked whether low-income citizens could realistically obtain a Firearm User’s Licence (FUL), and what would happen if police confiscated their weapon after a home defence situation.
“Do I get a loaner until I get mine back? I’d be a sitting duck,” he said. He also inquired about the legal status of spouses using the weapon, and whether pets were protected.
Minister of Homeland Security Roger Alexander responded that FULs are accessible to all citizens and clarified that a spouse could legally use a weapon of opportunity in a justified situation. However, he noted that pets are classified as property under the law. Weapons used in incidents would need to be submitted to the Forensic Science Centre, but unless an investigation required it, firearms would not be seized indefinitely.
Another participant, Cheryl Ann Francique, called for the creation of a national fingerprint database, citing a past incident in which her daughter was robbed through her bedroom window.
Alexander supported the suggestion and criticised what he described as double standards among citizens.
“Many people object to local reforms but willingly hand over their biometric data to foreign embassies. That mindset needs to change,” he said.
Evelyn Ferreira, a survivor of a home invasion who later had her car stolen from a churchyard, said she is watching the Opposition’s response closely.
“Let them put their money where their mouth is,” she said.
