The US Law Turning Fences Purple, and Why 120,000 Aussies Want It to Deal With Crime

In some U.S. states, it’s not uncommon to see purple fences or markings surrounding a property.

Far from being some kind of trending tribute to the shade between magenta and blue, the coded signage is actually a red flag for those thinking of trespassing—enter at your own risk and face possible consequences, including death.

The practice is at the extreme end of “Castle Law,” a concept that gives householders increased powers against intruders.

And while there’s no suggestion Castle Law will lead to purple fences across Australia, a movement calling for some variation of the law is growing.

Over 120,000 have signed a petition started by Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) in Queensland.

The ‘Largest’ Petition in the State’s History

KAP Leader Robbie Katter says the petition is now the largest in the state’s history.

The outback MP says people are tired of crime and the legal tests required to prove their innocence if they fight back.

He recalls an acquaintance being left $60,000 out of pocket after defending himself against an intruder.

“You need some tools to acutely address the high rates of crime and recidivism,” he told The Epoch Times.

“We’re not going to say this is the panacea of all crime prevention, but it will be a useful tool.

“There are a lot of people out there who want something more in their bundle of rights.”

As for concerns the law could be misused by overzealous householders targeting petty acts, Katter says he believes the majority of people will do the right thing.

“To insinuate we’re all going to be [like the gun-wielding cartoon character] Elmer Fudd waiting behind the door to kill people is an over exaggeration,” he said.

Down south, Victorian Libertarian Leader David Limbrick also wants Castle Law in Australia’s second-most populous state; his own petition has garnered more than 19,000 signatures.

“Victoria has seen a steady increase in aggravated burglaries since 2018, with a significant increase in the past year,” he said.

“More homes are being broken into, often by armed offenders.”

Limbrick said under Victorian law, a householder must have a “reasonable belief” that their actions were necessary. If a trespasser has not made their intentions clear, then that householder may not be able to rely on the self-defence argument.

“Victoria needs to update our laws to ensure that people can reasonably defend their homes,” he said.

What is a ‘Legal Presumption’ And How Does Castle Law Change It?

Sydney-based lawyer Tony Nikolic, a former criminologist who has worked with police and enforcement agencies, believes a “carefully structured” Castle Law is necessary.

“It’s unreasonable to think an offender will politely allow time to call the police,” he told The Epoch Times.

“In real life, people are often forced to act in seconds to protect those they love.

“Australia already has strong self-defence provisions … but Castle Law would shift the legal presumption toward the victim—ensuring that a homeowner defending their family isn’t treated like the criminal.”

A majority of homicides in Australia happen in residential settings—42 percent occurred in the victims’ own homes in 2023-24.

“Let’s be honest—ideology, virtue signalling, and imagination won’t protect anyone during a home invasion,” Nikolic said.

“It’s not neat and tidy. These are chaotic, violent, terror-driven moments where good people have seconds to act. Ordinary Australians don’t have panic buttons or 24-hour security.”

In the American system, there is a presumption that anyone who uses force to defend against illegal entry is behaving lawfully.

In Australia, victims of home intrusion who fight back generally rely upon common law and a statutory self-defence, as well as some “defence of dwelling” provisions—but there is no blanket immunity.

Nikolic’s concern revolves around the fact that if someone does act in self-defence during a break-in, they can still be charged, arrested, and have to go through a lengthy legal process to prove their innocence.

So while self-defence laws exist, Australia lacks the tight protections from over-zealous prosecutors or presumptions that may lean towards would-be criminals.

“That’s why Castle Law is politically potent,” Nikolic said.

“It promises clarity and reassurance, not because the existing framework is incapable.”

The lawyer said a balanced solution could involve allowing self-defence using reasonable force, but giving authorities bandwidth to determine whether the use of force was proportionate.

On top of this, tighter rules could be introduced to stop “knee-jerk” prosecutions against home defenders along with stricter evidence requirements.

Existing Laws Enough to Protect Residents: Lawyer

In contrast, Brisbane lawyer Michael Cope, a special counsel at Cornwalls Law and More, believes existing laws are sufficient.

In Queensland, Cope said any measure that would afford blanket protection to a person who harmed or killed someone on their property was open to misuse.

“We don’t support these laws because basically they’re likely to be a licence for vigilantism,” he told The Epoch Times.

Cope said under current laws, a householder was permitted to act against an intruder within reasonable means, which could include killing that person if they suspect the person had the intent to kill them or cause grievous bodily harm.

In this case, Cope says the victim would not be expected to prove the intent in court.

Cope’s concern is that Castle Law would wipe out the requirement for a victim’s actions to be proportionate to the threat.

“So Castle Law would remove any restrictions and you could do whatever you like to someone who enters your property,” he said.

Cope also says in extreme cases, it could give license to cause harm for those inadvertently treading on someone’s property.

“Private property is not a universal right,” he said. “Otherwise it’s a licence for people to engage in all kinds of vigilante conduct.

“The Queensland Criminal Code already gives [householders] more rights than the common law.”

One way forward, Cope says, is to amend the law so that home owners who manage successfully defend a charge can recover their legal costs.