Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Knowing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    The data is, sadly, unavailable to answer this question my dear boy.
    Congratulations on your new strategy.

    Comment


    • #17
      [QUOTE=Pierre;414178]
      Originally posted by John G View Post

      And do you think that was applicable for someone knowing the Whitechapel murderer as well?
      I doubt if there were many people in 1888, including those versed in the law, who even knew the offence existed.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        Congratulations on your new strategy.
        Oh my dear boy, what an absolutely charming thing to say. In fact, I'm going to give you a little reward for being so utterly delightful.

        I'm sure you know all about the Camden Town Murder of 1907 right? If you don't, it's no problem, you can read all about it in my book 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery'. As you are no doubt aware, the police released a facsimile to the press of the handwriting of their main suspect for the murder. That man's ex-girlfriend, Ruby Young, recognised the handwriting but didn't report him to the police.

        Now, there were two fictionalised accounts of the story of the Camden Town Murder published in 1944 and 1953 entitled respectively 'For Them That Trespass' and 'In The Shadow'.

        My dear boy, I appreciate we are talking here about the twentieth century, not 1888, but the law in this respect hasn't changed all that much and well my dear boy, you will appreciate more than anyone that the data shows that people are people.

        Anyway my dear boy, forgive my digression. In the 1944 book, by Ernest Raymond, a character called Rosie Wareing is loosely based on Ruby Young. As I summarise the position in my own book, Rosie Wareing forms a friendship with a man the police suspect of murdering a woman and he 'confided in her that he was the man the police were looking for. Worried that she might be committing a criminal offence by not reporting this to the police, she tells a friend who tells another friend and she is advised that she could go to prison for life for harbouring a fugitive whereas, if she gives him up to the police she will collect a £100 reward,'.

        In the second novel, the author Austin Stone has Ruby Young confide her secret to a female friend called Stella who passes on the secret to a man called Ted Morely who says this to Ruby Young:

        "If what Stella tells me is true, Miss Young - both you and your friend are in a very dangerous position. Do you realize that?" His eyes were full upon her, shrewd and slightly hooded.
        "Possibly so." Ruby swallowed. "But then -"
        "That doesn't apply to Stella, of course - nor myself, for that matter, because we're not in a position to give the names of the people in question - the people who are deliberately keeping this vital information back from the police! And it's a criminal offence to keep information back from the police. Did you know that, Miss Young?"


        And there, one might think, are two examples - provided through the respective authors - of what people generally believed about the law. Who, after all, could really say what aiding and abetting a murderer, which was of course a criminal offence, actually involved?

        Comment


        • #19
          In respect of aiding and abetting, it is not sufficient to simply be a bystander; the defendant must have participated in the crime in someway, i.e. by giving encouragement to the principal: see R v Coney (1882).

          Under the Criminal Law Act, 1967, s 5(1), it is an offence to accept consideration in exchange for withholding information to the authorities.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by John G View Post
            In respect of aiding and abetting, it is not sufficient to simply be a bystander; the defendant must have participated in the crime in someway, i.e. by giving encouragement to the principal: see R v Coney (1882).
            I don't suppose we need to get involved in a protracted legal debate here but it's a little bit more complicated than that because R v Coney was about a crime (of assault) occurring in a public place witnessed by a large crowd (i.e. it was an unlawful boxing match) and the question was whether the spectators were guilty of assault simply by being there. An express distinction was made in the judgment between this type of scenario and "assassinations done in private" where, even if a witness took no part in the crime, he or she could, it was said, be found guilty of an aiding and abetting offence simply by being present, if no action was taken in such a case to prevent the murder or bring the killer to justice.

            Likewise, a charge of being an accessory after the fact could be made if an individual "received, harboured and maintained" a murderer (and some indictments might add the words "relieved, aided, comforted and assisted").

            Anyway, the actual legal position is not important because I think the point of consideration – and certainly the point I was raising by quoting from those books - is whether most members of the public would have had a clue about the precise legal position, i.e. the meaning of aiding and abetting etc. or whether it was illegal to withhold information about a murder from the police.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              I don't suppose we need to get involved in a protracted legal debate here but it's a little bit more complicated than that because R v Coney was about a crime (of assault) occurring in a public place witnessed by a large crowd (i.e. it was an unlawful boxing match) and the question was whether the spectators were guilty of assault simply by being there. An express distinction was made in the judgment between this type of scenario and "assassinations done in private" where, even if a witness took no part in the crime, he or she could, it was said, be found guilty of an aiding and abetting offence simply by being present, if no action was taken in such a case to prevent the murder or bring the killer to justice.

              Likewise, a charge of being an accessory after the fact could be made if an individual "received, harboured and maintained" a murderer (and some indictments might add the words "relieved, aided, comforted and assisted").

              Anyway, the actual legal position is not important because I think the point of consideration – and certainly the point I was raising by quoting from those books - is whether most members of the public would have had a clue about the precise legal position, i.e. the meaning of aiding and abetting etc. or whether it was illegal to withhold information about a murder from the police.
              But in the case where someone knew the Whitechapel murderer and knew what he had done and was about to do, i.e. knew when he was going to commit another murder and why, that person was a specific individual and not "most members of the public".

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                But in the case where someone knew the Whitechapel murderer and knew what he had done and was about to do, i.e. knew when he was going to commit another murder and why, that person was a specific individual and not "most members of the public".
                Oh my dear boy, what a charmingly meaningless statement for, you see, every individual member of the public is a specific individual so unless you identify one of those members of the public as someone with specialised knowledge of the criminal law, the chances are that this person of whom you speak has the same legal knowledge as most other members of the public, i.e. very little. I don't see how the fact that this person "knew the Whitechapel murderer and knew what he had done and was about to do" actually changes that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  Oh my dear boy, what a charmingly meaningless statement for, you see, every individual member of the public is a specific individual so unless you identify one of those members of the public as someone with specialised knowledge of the criminal law, the chances are that this person of whom you speak has the same legal knowledge as most other members of the public, i.e. very little. I don't see how the fact that this person "knew the Whitechapel murderer and knew what he had done and was about to do" actually changes that.
                  That is correct, David: Unless we identify one of those members of the public as someone with specialised knowledge of the criminal law.

                  Pierre

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                    That is correct, David: Unless we identify one of those members of the public as someone with specialised knowledge of the criminal law.
                    My dear boy, how absolutely right you are. It's always a good idea, not to mention charming and delightful, to repeat exactly what I have said. And do you think such a person might have been worried that they could be charged as an accessory before the fact?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      My dear boy, how absolutely right you are. It's always a good idea, not to mention charming and delightful, to repeat exactly what I have said.

                      And do you think such a person might have been worried that they could be charged as an accessory before the fact?
                      Since you ask and since you like to hear your own words being repeated, the answer is that we must hypothesize that such a person was exceedingly worried about things described in your #20.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        Since you ask and since you like to hear your own words being repeated, the answer is that we must hypothesize that such a person was exceedingly worried about things described in your #20.
                        My dear boy, I squeal with delight at my humble prose so hitting the mark of your charming hypothesizing.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post

                          And do you think such a person might have been worried that they could be charged as an accessory before the fact?
                          What do you mean when you say "before the fact"?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            I don't suppose we need to get involved in a protracted legal debate here but it's a little bit more complicated than that because R v Coney was about a crime (of assault) occurring in a public place witnessed by a large crowd (i.e. it was an unlawful boxing match) and the question was whether the spectators were guilty of assault simply by being there. An express distinction was made in the judgment between this type of scenario and "assassinations done in private" where, even if a witness took no part in the crime, he or she could, it was said, be found guilty of an aiding and abetting offence simply by being present, if no action was taken in such a case to prevent the murder or bring the killer to justice.

                            Likewise, a charge of being an accessory after the fact could be made if an individual "received, harboured and maintained" a murderer (and some indictments might add the words "relieved, aided, comforted and assisted").

                            Anyway, the actual legal position is not important because I think the point of consideration – and certainly the point I was raising by quoting from those books - is whether most members of the public would have had a clue about the precise legal position, i.e. the meaning of aiding and abetting etc. or whether it was illegal to withhold information about a murder from the police.
                            In R v Clarkson (1971), where Dictum of Hawkins J in Coney (1882) was approved and followed, it was held that mere voluntary presence at the scene of a crime doesn't necessarily amount to aiding and abetting on the ground of encouragement. However, if they were voluntarily and purposefully present, and offered no opposition to it, or at least expressed no dissent, a jury would, in certain circumstances, be entitled to consider whether this amounted to wilful encouragement, and therefore that he aided and abetted.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                              What do you mean when you say "before the fact"?
                              My dear boy, how delightful of you to answer my question with a question of your own. The question I suppose is what was in the mind of the person in question but if, like you, they did not know what an accessory before the fact was, then we can probably safely conclude that were not worried that they could be charged with such an offence, whether they had committed it or not.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                My dear boy, how delightful of you to answer my question with a question of your own. The question I suppose is what was in the mind of the person in question but if, like you, they did not know what an accessory before the fact was, then we can probably safely conclude that were not worried that they could be charged with such an offence, whether they had committed it or not.
                                They were not like me and the question is what you mean when you say fact.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X