Knowing

[John G]

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 respect of receiving: "If the husband commit a felony or treason, and the wife knowingly receive him, she shall neither be accessory after as to the felony, nor principal as to the treason, for she is sub potestate viri, and she is bound to receive her husband." (Per Lord Hale, Pleas of the Crown.)

[David Orsam]

They were not like me and the question is what you mean when you say fact.

Oh my dear boy, I wasn't suggesting that anyone was like you. Not at all. You are quite unique, my dear boy, and long may you remain so. No, my dear boy, I said that if, like you, they did not know what an accessory before the fact was then we can probably safely conclude they were not worried about the possibility of committing such an offence.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, I wasn't suggesting that anyone was like you. Not at all. You are quite unique, my dear boy, and long may you remain so. No, my dear boy, I said that if, like you, they did not know what an accessory before the fact was then we can probably safely conclude they were not worried about the possibility of committing such an offence.

And you can not explain what you mean when you say fact, but I think you mean murder.

[John G]

And you can not explain what you mean when you say fact, but I think you mean murder.

You might want to look up William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 4, Chapter 3.

[David Orsam]

And you can not explain what you mean when you say fact, but I think you mean murder.

It's not my word, my dear boy, so it cannot contain any meaning that exists in my head. I think you will probably find it mentioned in the Criminal Law Act of 1826, if you are determined to get to the bottom of the fact.

[John G]

See also Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...cipals/enacted

[GUT]

Doesn't know what "accessory before the fact means" but wants to argue pointsof law.

[Pierre]

Doesn't know what "accessory before the fact means" but wants to argue pointsof law.

You are wrong. A fact means a crime and David refused to answer me when I asked him if he meant murder.

[David Orsam]

You are wrong. A fact means a crime and David refused to answer me when I asked him if he meant murder.

Oh my dear boy, I've never refused to answer a question in my life. Especially not one of yours. And, indeed, when I cast my eyes back a few posts I see that I did, indeed, answer your question. Did you miss it my dear boy? I was sure you would have been reading the Criminal Law Act of 1826 in which the expression "accessory before the fact" is nicely defined for you.

But when I cast my eyes back even further I see that you unaccountably failed to answer my question in the seventh post in the thread when I said "How are you to know it is true?". Do you remember that question my dear boy? Our delightful little conversation was rather interrupted and you never answered it so I wasn't able to give you the full benefit of my opinion.

[Pierre]

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?

Exactly.

That is what I would tell you if you told me you were a killer and were going to kill again.

And if you were a killer and I told you I donīt believe you, and you desperately wanted me to believe you - what would you do?

[David Orsam]

Exactly.

That is what I would tell you if you told me you were a killer and were going to kill again.

And if you were a killer and I told you I donīt believe you, and you desperately wanted me to believe you - what would you do?

My dear boy, it's a charming question, based on the charmingly misguided assumption that I can inhabit the mind of a crazed sociopath, but we appear to have moved away from the strictly legal question with which I thought we were dealing.

The issue is how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove your knowledge that I am the killer and the question you asked was "What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed (sic) by him and did not notify the police about it?"

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;414748

My dear boy, it's a charming question, based on the charmingly misguided assumption that I can inhabit the mind of a crazed sociopath, but we appear to have moved away from the strictly legal question with which I thought we were dealing.

I donīt agree with you that we have moved away from the "strictly legal question", all legal problems depend on human action.

The issue is how the prosecuting authorities would be able to prove your knowledge that I am the killer

That is actually not the historical issue at all. And therefore not the legal issue here. The issue at hand is what someone who knew about the murders thought about the risk of not notifying the authorities.

and the question you asked was "What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed (sic) by him and did not notify the police about it?"

And since there was a risk of the authorities making an example of such a person, i.e. someone who knew the law well and knew about the murders, the law could be used as an instrument of terror against such a person.

[David Orsam]

I donīt agree with you that we have moved away from the "strictly legal question", all legal problems depend on human action.

That is actually not the historical issue at all. And therefore not the legal issue here. The issue at hand is what someone who knew about the murders thought about the risk of not notifying the authorities.

And since there was a risk of the authorities making an example of such a person, i.e. someone who knew the law well and knew about the murders, the law could be used as an instrument of terror against such a person.

I see, my dear boy, and what have you concluded the risk was to the person who knew about the murders but did not notify the authorities?

[Pierre]

I see, my dear boy, and what have you concluded the risk was to the person who knew about the murders but did not notify the authorities?

No, David, that is the wrong question. The question is not what I have concluded, but what such a person in the past concluded and what actions were the results of the conclusions.

[David Orsam]

No, David, that is the wrong question. The question is not what I have concluded, but what such a person in the past concluded and what actions were the results of the conclusions.

Well, my dear boy, I don't think it is the wrong question because I was asking you what you believed the answer is to the charming question you posed in the OP. But let me put it this way:

What would the law say about a situation where someone in 1888 knew a killer and knew about the murders committed by him (because he/she was told by the killer) and did not notify the police about it?

What is the answer?