Knowing

[Pierre]

Hi,

here is a question for anyone who knows Victorian law.

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders comitted by him and did not notify the police about it?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

here is a question for anyone who knows Victorian law.

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders comitted by him and did not notify the police about it?

Cheers, Pierre

I venture to suggest the attitude adopted may to a degree depend on whom the person is.

I mean a family member or wife may be considered to have some fall back position whereas some in a position of authority would not.

However let's see what the legal guys have to add on it.


Steve

[John G]

Hi,

here is a question for anyone who knows Victorian law.

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders comitted by him and did not notify the police about it?

Cheers, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Probably nothing. The relevant common law, misprison of felony, appears to have fallen into disuse for about a century after 1852. See Sykes v Dpp (1962) http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs5/1962AC528.html

[David Orsam]

Hi,

here is a question for anyone who knows Victorian law.

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders comitted by him and did not notify the police about it?

Hello my dear boy.

Part one. It wasn't a crime to know a killer and not notify the police about it.

Part two. What do you mean by "knew about the murders committed by him" my dear boy?

[Pierre]

Hello my dear boy.

Part one. It wasn't a crime to know a killer and not notify the police about it.

Part two. What do you mean by "knew about the murders committed by him" my dear boy?

Hello Oscar.

If you were killing people in 1888 and I knew it, because you told me and you also told me you would kill more people, and I did not notify the police, what would the legal implications be for myself, if any?

Pierre

[John G]

Hello my dear boy.

Part one. It wasn't a crime to know a killer and not notify the police about it.

Part two. What do you mean by "knew about the murders committed by him" my dear boy?

Hello David,

Failure to report a felony was deemed to be a misdemeanour by the House of Lords in Sykes v Dpp (1962), where the common law offence of misprison of felony was deemed to be still relevant.

However, Lord Denning noted that the offence had fallen into desuetude for some considerable period after 1852. Nonetheless, per Lord Denning, "In light of this history it is plain that there is and always has been an offence of misprison of felony and that it is not obsolete. It is true that until recently it has been rarely invoked but that is no ground for denying its existence." (ibid)

[David Orsam]

Hello Oscar.

If you were killing people in 1888 and I knew it, because you told me and you also told me you would kill more people, and I did not notify the police, what would the legal implications be for myself, if any?

Oh my dear boy, what a charming little pen name you have found for me there, I am most amus-ed.

Now my dear boy, down to the matter at hand, the problem you have created for the prosecuting authorities is that I could be telling you this as a joke or a fairy tale. How are you to know it is true?

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Failure to report a felony was deemed to be a misdemeanour by the House of Lords in Sykes v Dpp (1962), where the common law offence of misprison of felony was deemed to be still relevant.

However, Lord Denning noted that the offence had fallen into desuetude for some considerable period after 1852. Nonetheless, per Lord Denning, "In light of this history it is plain that there is and always has been an offence of misprison of felony and that it is not obsolete. It is true that until recently it has been rarely invoked but that is no ground for denying its existence." (ibid)

Yes, indeed, John although a woman, Georgina May Casserly, was actually convicted of this crime as late as 1938, having pleaded guilty to the offence. She was the wife of Peter Arthur Casserley who was killed by Edward Royal Chaplin (and found guilty of manslaughter) and she was convicted on the basis that she heard two gunshots and sounds of a quarrel after Chaplin had come out of a room with her husband but she did not report this.

The judge at her trial commented that she had pleaded guilty to an offence which had been described by Lord Westbury in 1866 as "having fallen long into disuse".

She wasn't sent to prison.

But I guess it shows that the offence could have been used to charge someone in 1888 if the authorities had wanted to make an example of someone.

[John G]

Yes, indeed, John although a woman, Georgina May Casserly, was actually convicted of this crime as late as 1938, having pleaded guilty to the offence. She was the wife of Peter Arthur Casserley who was killed by Edward Royal Chaplin (and found guilty of manslaughter) and she was convicted on the basis that she heard two gunshots and sounds of a quarrel after Chaplin had come out of a room with her husband but she did not report this.

The judge at her trial commented that she had pleaded guilty to an offence which had been described by Lord Westbury in 1866 as "having fallen long into disuse".

She wasn't sent to prison.

But I guess it shows that the offence could have been used to charge someone in 1888 if the authorities had wanted to make an example of someone.

Hello David,

And I'm reminded of how creative the authorities can be when setting out to make an example of someone. Thus, in Shaw v DPP (1962), the famous, or should that be infamous, "ladies' directory" case, the House of Lords effectively decided to invent a law from scratch, the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, even though there was no record of any such offence previously being applied, and therby rejecting the defence argument that this was an offence not known to the law.

Of course, this was a highly controversial decision as everyone is presumed to know the law. In a powerful decent Lord Reid argued that Parliament was the proper place to decide such matters: "Where Parliament fears to tread it is not for the courts to rush in."

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;414089]

But I guess it shows that the offence could have been used to charge someone in 1888 if the authorities had wanted to make an example of someone.

And in what types of cases would the authorities have wanted to make an example of someone?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

And in what types of cases would the authorities have wanted to make an example of someone?

Oh my dear boy, I see that I inadvertently used the word "if" when I said "if the authorities had wanted to make an example of someone" and I know how much you don't like that word because it indicates a hypothetical scenario which never actually happened. As you will, quite rightly, tell me that any answer I provide is historically invalid, I trust you will appreciate that, on this occasion, discretion is the better part of valour.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, I see that I inadvertently used the word "if" when I said "if the authorities had wanted to make an example of someone" and I know how much you don't like that word because it indicates a hypothetical scenario which never actually happened. As you will, quite rightly, tell me that any answer I provide is historically invalid, I trust you will appreciate that, on this occasion, discretion is the better part of valour.

So your own understanding is that "if the authorities wanted...".

Do you think that this was also the understanding among people generally in 1888, or among people who knew the law?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;414170]

And in what types of cases would the authorities have wanted to make an example of someone?

Pierre

Pierre,

Considering there wasn't a single reported case between 1852 and 1938, I would say that the chances of being prosecuted for this offence in 1888, whatever the circumstances, were, in the words of the great Muhammad Ali, "Slim, and none. And Slim just left town."

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;414177]

Pierre,

Considering there wasn't a single reported case between 1852 and 1938, I would say that the chances of being prosecuted for this offence in 1888, whatever the circumstances, were, in the words of the great Muhammad Ali, "Slim, and none. And Slim just left town."

And do you think that was applicable for someone knowing the Whitechapel murderer as well?

[David Orsam]

So your own understanding is that "if the authorities wanted...".

Do you think that this was also the understanding among people generally in 1888, or among people who knew the law?

The data is, sadly, unavailable to answer this question my dear boy.