Consider this scenario

[Dargovezna]

I say chase him down with a GUN and then, well you get the idea.

In which case he'd be in shitloads more trouble here in the UK. Don't like people who kick about with guns in the slightest.

That's just unfortunate for the British in my view.

[Yootopia]

I say chase him down with a GUN and then, well you get the idea.

In which case he'd be in shitloads more trouble here in the UK. Don't like people who kick about with guns in the slightest.

That's just unfortunate for the British in my view.

I dunno, we do alright.

[Fanaglia]

See, the solution is to shoot them while they're still in your house. Problem solved.

[Dargovezna]

I say chase him down with a GUN and then, well you get the idea.

In which case he'd be in shitloads more trouble here in the UK. Don't like people who kick about with guns in the slightest.

That's just unfortunate for the British in my view.

I dunno, we do alright.

Well I suppose if you need to use cricket bats to commit violence on burglars, then by all means do what ya gotta do.

[Sel Appa]

You should receive a medal for keeping filth off the streets.

[Rhalellan]

Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.

The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications.
They are:
self-defense
defense of a third person
crime prevention
law enforcement

Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force.

These are the rules of deadly force as I was taught in the Marine Corps. If you stick to these rules you will never have to justify your actions.

[Gravlen]

OK, consider the following:
- You come home from your place of worship to find your family tied up and balaclavad men in your house (which is in an urban area)
- They tie you up as well, and attempt to rob your house
- You escape, and contact your brother for help
- You and your bother chase the burglars from your home
- You keep chasing the fleeing miscreants, even though the threat to you, your family, and your property is long gone
- You and your brother manage to get one of them to the ground, down the road from your house, after he has fled from you
- You beat the burglar round the head with a cricket bat, so hard that it breaks the bat in three places, and giving him a brain injury such that he is incapable of standing trial for his original offence.

At what point does the defence of your home and your family finish?

Defence ends when the burglars flee from your home.

At what point are you attacking a man who has fled his original crime, posing no further threat?

When you beat him with the bat.

I don't see a problem with a hot pursuit after the burglars. You're allowed to do that, and to subdue them using a reasonable amount of force.

At what point was your defence beyond reasonable? Was it beyond reasonable?

It was, and it went beyond reasonable when you hit the burglar when he was on the ground.

In short, is the above scenario OK in your eyes?

No.

Is it reasonable that, following the above scenario, you would be prosecuted for the attack on the burglar?

Yes. You've gone beyond a reasonable use of force, so you should be prosecuted for it.