mr hobson, a solicitor, has explained to us why Tony Martin was found guilty when he shot a burglar who broke into his house.

I would like him to explain events in 1982, when an undercover police officer was carrying out surveillance in the grounds of gangster Kenny Noye's residence, investigating the Brinks-Mat bullion robbery.

Mr Noye discovered the officer and killed him, stabbing him 12 times.

At the trial, the jury, presumably after painstaking consideration, accepted his plea of self defence.

So it appears that it's ok to kill a brave police officer if you are a wealthy crook, but it's not ok to kill a crook if you are a scared old man.

Could not the defence in Mr Martin's case have quoted the Noye case as a legal precedent?

Noye was subsequently found guilty of handling the stolen gold, and is currently serving life for the road rage killing of a young man.

The chief prosecution witness in that trial was shot dead in his car six months after the trial. Nobody has been arrested to date.

John Utting

Swindon