A Conservative government would consider strengthening the rights of householders who tackle burglars, the shadow home secretary has said.

Who's to decide what's reasonable then? Some magistrate who's possibly having a bad day?

A Jury of your peers.

You mean stupid people.

The Tories want to give people who kill burglars while defending their home more protection from prosecution, according to the shadow home secretary.

Chris Grayling promised a review of householders' rights to defend themselves against intruders.

He said there were some cases where it may be "proportionate" to take a housebreaker's life - such as when someone is attacked in his home by an armed intruder.

However, he added there would always be some circumstances where people needed to be prosecuted because they had gone "over the top", for instance if they pursued a fleeing burglar and shot him dead.

"We have long debated and argued within the Conservative Party that there should be higher threshold built around the idea of proportionate force," Mr Grayling told Sky News political editor Adam Boulton.

"What we intend to do if we win the election is reopen the issue.

"The Government was supposed to have dealt with this two years ago, but it didn't change the law in the end.

"We want to go back and look at the law again and look at if 'grossly disproportionate' force is the right measure.

"I want it to be absolutely clear to the householder that if something happens to you the law will protect you if you defend your interests.

"People aren't clear on that at the moment."

Mr Grayling said he would like to change police rules to prevent cases where householders went out into the street to remonstrate with trouble-makers and found themselves being arrested.

"I have come across numerous cases over the years where a householder confronts troublemakers in the street and the troublemakers say 'He threatened us' and the police, because of the rule-book, have to arrest that person, take them to the cells and very often caution them," Mr Grayling said.

"It is completely the wrong way round.

"We need police officers to be able to say 'Don't be so stupid. That's not right. Let's sort it out here and now', not to feel that the rule-book says that if a complaint has been made, no matter how spurious, the person has to be arrested."

He accused the Government of "systematically undermining" the criminal justice system, claiming official figures show more than half of people committing violence against the person are cautioned, rather than charged.

The figures also show that 40% of all offences are now dealt with by a warning, caution or fixed penalty notice.

"Twelve years of Labour government has systematically undermined our criminal justice system, allowing more criminals to get away with it and leaving more and more victims with a huge sense of injustice," Mr Grayling said.

"We desperately need change if we are to rebuild public confidence."

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, announced earlier this month that the law, which allows householders to use "reasonable force" against intruders, does not go far enough.

Grayling believes that only householders who use "grossly disproportionate" force should be prosecuted.

Starmer yesterday dismissed Grayling's suggestion as he strongly defended the decision to prosecute Hussain who had meted out "summary justice".

In an interview on Radio 4's The World at One, Starmer said: "The law is that reasonable force can be used and if the householder makes a mistake they will be protected because they will be judged on the basis of the mistake that they made. What the law ... doesn't allow is for individuals after the event, having pursued someone who may or may not have been an intruder, then to seek some sort of summary justice. As the judge recognised in the Hussain case, which involved beating severely an individual, we can't allow our system to be undermined by those exacting summary judgment in that way."