Knowing

[David Orsam]

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.

[John G]

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.

[David Orsam]

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?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;414178]

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.

[Pierre]

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

Congratulations on your new strategy.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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?

[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]

[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

[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."

[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.

[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?

[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)