IN RECENT weeks, the police service has been in the news. One very senior officer was quoted as suggesting that bobbies who patrol the beat should be discontinued because there were no crimes for them to deal with – in other words, she was suggesting those uniformed patrols were an unnecessary luxury.

This completely misses the point – it is due to uniformed officers being highly visible on their beats that crimes and other anti-social behaviour are kept to a minimum. Thus those officers on patrol are a great asset to the community. An elderly lady once told me she regarded uniformed police officers as an insurance policy – they kept her safe from crime and other social problems and for that she was grateful. The fact that few crimes or offences are committed is due to their presence – remove the patrols and we shall experience increased anti-social behaviour and rising crime.

Another chief constable raised a fuss by suggesting her officers should not attend the scenes of minor crimes such as burglaries. One splendid and well-known method of reducing the crime figures is not to record any crimes. Call them something else!

For example, long ago, my raincoat was stolen from a village hall cloakroom and I reported the theft. Later, I discovered that the police officer to whom I reported the crime had recorded it as “lost property”, not theft. I recovered my coat two years later when, as a young constable, I caught a man wearing it. That’s when I discovered it was recorded as lost property, not as a crime. A neat way of reducing the crime figures.

However, since I joined the police in 1952, burglary has been continuously downgraded until it appears to be in danger of being obliterated. If that happens, the authorities could claim that no burglaries were being committed due to good police work, consequently even fewer bobbies would be needed on the beat. In fact, fewer bobbies on the beat would lead to an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour.

From the earliest beginnings of our society, burglary has been regarded as breach of Common Law and a very serious crime. My New Law Dictionary of 1744 tells me the name burglary is derived from the Saxon burgh meaning house, and laron meaning thief. The crime was committed “where a man breaketh and entereth the house of another in the night time to the intention of committing some felony whether or not that intention was executed (sic).”

The essence of the crime was breaking into a house at night (9pm-6am) with the intention of committing a felony such as stealing, murder, rape, arson, damage or some other serious crime.

Breaking into a house during the daytime with such intent was called house-breaking, and breaking into a church was known as sacrilege. Those three crimes were collectively known “the breaking offences” and when committed at night, burglary and sacrilege carried the death penalty. Robbery, by the way, refers to attacks on people, not houses and buildings.

When Henry I came to the throne in 1100, he introduced new capital offences which included murder, treason, burglary, arson, robbery and theft – the penalty was death. Henry II decided our legal system required change and so he enacted that crimes like robbery, murder and false coining should be punished by amputation of the guilty person’s right hand and right foot. Later in 1536 Henry VIII extended the death penalty to include piracy, rape, murder, sacrilege, highway robbery, abduction and some burglaries and housebreakings. Hanging remained the penalty for many crimes and by 1700 it could be imposed for high or petty treason, piracy, murder, arson, burglary, house-breaking, robbery, horse-stealing and stealing from a person to the value of one shilling (5p).

The Common Law dealt with such crimes but was codified by the Larceny Act of 1916 which was in force when I became a police officer.

The crime of burglary, along with the crime of night-time breaking into houses and places of divine worship, continued to be regarded as serious matters and were classified as felonies.

Day-time breaking into houses, however, was not quite so serious and was categorised as a misdemeanour. There were many other breaking offences relating to buildings such as workshops, docks and mines.

A substantial change to the law on burglary and kindred offences came with the passing of the Theft Act of 1968. The crime of house-breaking disappeared from the statute book and in its place was an extended definition of burglary. The changes meant that burglary could be committed at any time of day (not only in the night as hitherto) but also in any building, not merely dwelling houses. A new crime of aggravated burglary was created, e.g. being armed with a weapon while committing the crime, but in some cases burglary could be tried at magistrates’ courts. In this way, its seriousness was reduced.

The Theft Act of 1968 also changed the definition of theft and robbery and generally updated what had previously been a rather out-of-date statute. Now, it seems, the criminal status of burglary has been further eroded but this could lead to another unwelcome development – the people might take the law into their own hands while defending their homes and goods. And that is against the law!

Flittermice

On a balmy if late summer evening it seemed sensible to sleep with our bedroom windows open. It would keep us cool and we’re fortunate in having quiet surroundings.

But around 2.30am, I was roused by a strange sound and probably due to my restlessness, my wife awoke. When I put the light, on we found a bat zooming around the room in state of panic, clearly trying to find an exit but with no success, even though both windows were open. I think my wife was recalling those childhood beliefs that bats can get entangled in a woman’s hair. It is nothing more than an ancient superstition, but she hid under the covers, just in case.

What concerned me was precisely which of our 17 or so bat species was hurtling around our bedroom. I decided it was a pipistrelle, because it was so small. Pipistrelles, sometimes called flittermice, can be seen almost everywhere in Britain. I had earlier caught one that was entangled in some netting on our wall and was surprised at both its strength and very light weight.

However, the problem was how to return this night visitor to the exterior darkness but it is nigh impossible to catch a healthy bat, despite its limited eyesight. Its incredible echo-location radar-style system enables it to dodge obstructions and capture flying insects in the darkness so how I could overcome such sophisticated navigational aids?

Then I had a brainwave. The solution was to switch off the light and convince the bat there was a predator in the room. I selected a small bath towel. Extending it between my widespread hands as my wife put out the light, I tossed the towel into the air so that it floated momentarily. Maybe the bat would think it was a dragon? I think it did. When we put on the light the bat had gone. Then we closed the windows.