IT is three o'clock in the morning. Your family are asleep. Then - a noise downstairs.

In an instant you realise the terrifying truth: an intruder is in your home. What is the correct reaction?

Is it to telephone the police and keep still? The nearest patrol may be many miles away. Chances are the burglar and your treasured possessions will be long gone before the police arrive.

So should you make a noise and try to scare the intruder off? Risky: he may try to silence you. And he could be armed.

What about cracking the burglar over the head with something heavy? You have safeguarded your family and could present the unconscious villain to the police. But who would they charge - you or the burglar?

There is no "correct reaction" to this nightmare. Logic and reason are overwhelmed by adrenaline and a primitive desire to protect your own.

A householder in such a frightening situation cannot possibly judge what the courts would deem "reasonable force" in self-defence - the current legal definition.

This law has left victims of crime fearing they would be criminalised by fighting back. That cannot be right. London's police chief and the director of public prosecutions have said as much.

Under pressure from the Tories, Tony Blair appeared to agree yesterday.

We need a new law which will transfer the fear of physical harm and imprisonment from householder to burglar.

Updated: 10:14 Thursday, December 09, 2004