Like Tony Martin, Mr Hussain is a man charged with harming those who broke into his home. This was no common or garden burglary. When the Hussains returned home from the Mosque, three masked men awaited them in their house. They tied up Munir Hussain's family and degraded them. The children must have been terrified for their lives, and the parents – including this defendant – must have suffered that worst of agonies, the fear that one's child is to suffer and, perhaps, to die.
Hussain fought them off and chased them and seriously injured one of them with a cricket bat. He has now been sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.
If he not had that adrenalin, that admirable, channelled aggression, he would not have been able to fight these men off and whatever they had planned for him and his wife and children would have been done to them. It is that adrenalin and aggression, aroused entirely by this most ugly of actions from his "victim" and accomplices, which led Hussain to chase them out and to strike them.
My question is this. Should the benefit of the doubt not rest with a man in his situation, grievously provoked and genuinely in fear for his life and the lives of his children? I accept that there are points beyond which we are not entitled to go, even when severely provoked. You are not entitled to tie up the burglar you catch in your house and torture him. But nothing in Hussain's behaviour seems to have been calculated or planned – it was a spur of the moment reaction to the invasion of his home by a gang of masked men and my instinct is to say, in choosing that path that gang took the risk of having what happened, happen.
I understand that he is to appeal. We will watch with interest.
By Alex Deane