Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial
Discussion
http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/news/20020130/r...
This link also puts it into perspective:
This doesn't mean that smart people don't get PTSD.
"Intellectual function is just one small factor that explains a little of the variance among people who suffer trauma," Vasterling says. "The big variable in whether you get PTSD is how bad, how extreme the stressor is. Intelligence is one little thing that might modulate risk. There are people who are really smart with great resources and great family support, but it was just such a bad thing that happened to them that they have PTSD anyway. That is the sad part of the disorder."
This link also puts it into perspective:
This doesn't mean that smart people don't get PTSD.
"Intellectual function is just one small factor that explains a little of the variance among people who suffer trauma," Vasterling says. "The big variable in whether you get PTSD is how bad, how extreme the stressor is. Intelligence is one little thing that might modulate risk. There are people who are really smart with great resources and great family support, but it was just such a bad thing that happened to them that they have PTSD anyway. That is the sad part of the disorder."
Devil2575 said:
http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/news/20020130/r...
This link also puts it into perspective:
This doesn't mean that smart people don't get PTSD.
"Intellectual function is just one small factor that explains a little of the variance among people who suffer trauma," Vasterling says. "The big variable in whether you get PTSD is how bad, how extreme the stressor is. Intelligence is one little thing that might modulate risk. There are people who are really smart with great resources and great family support, but it was just such a bad thing that happened to them that they have PTSD anyway. That is the sad part of the disorder."
Everyone is different - it's as simple as that.This link also puts it into perspective:
This doesn't mean that smart people don't get PTSD.
"Intellectual function is just one small factor that explains a little of the variance among people who suffer trauma," Vasterling says. "The big variable in whether you get PTSD is how bad, how extreme the stressor is. Intelligence is one little thing that might modulate risk. There are people who are really smart with great resources and great family support, but it was just such a bad thing that happened to them that they have PTSD anyway. That is the sad part of the disorder."
I'd agree with the severity of the incident/ incidents being a stressor however.
IanA2 said:
It might help.I don't think there is a miracle cure. Again, it comes back to the fact that everyone is different, as are the circumstances/ effects/ cause of PTSD.
Red 4 said:
IanA2 said:
It might help.I don't think there is a miracle cure. Again, it comes back to the fact that everyone is different, as are the circumstances/ effects/ cause of PTSD.
Snowboy said:
A mate of mine used to be a Barristers assistant.
He tells a story of sitting quietly on a train with the barrister who was reading the paper and just randomly said a word.
When my mate asked what he meant the barrister said he'd just got the last troubling crossword clue.
My mate took the paper to see the crossword and it was empty, the barrister didn't even have a pen.
He'd done the entire cryptic crossword in his head.
My mate took out a pen and told the Barrister to prove it, who answered every single question as my mate asked them. 100% accurate
Very clever people indeed.
Off topic but a friend writes some of the cryptic crosswords for a broadsheet that is pink in hue.He tells a story of sitting quietly on a train with the barrister who was reading the paper and just randomly said a word.
When my mate asked what he meant the barrister said he'd just got the last troubling crossword clue.
My mate took the paper to see the crossword and it was empty, the barrister didn't even have a pen.
He'd done the entire cryptic crossword in his head.
My mate took out a pen and told the Barrister to prove it, who answered every single question as my mate asked them. 100% accurate
Very clever people indeed.
In his head.
On the way to work.
IanA2 said:
I've had EMDR and it's worked for me. I'm usually pretty sceptical about things like this but I can't speak highly enough about it (and the treatment I've had from the psychologist and the specialist team). The prosecution is under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977: "A person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever is guilty of an offence."
The crucial bit is "information which he knows or believes to be false" - and I struggle to see how an honest but irrational belief that information is true could be enough to pass that test.
The crucial bit is "information which he knows or believes to be false" - and I struggle to see how an honest but irrational belief that information is true could be enough to pass that test.
So do I, but 10 PS suggested above an argument by analogy from decisions made in the context of the harassment legislation.
The prosecution affords us all a good laugh, and given that Shrimpton has hateful views and perhaps brings my profession into disrepute my heart does not bleed for him; but the case seems to me a waste of public resources on a non problem. Also, if as appears to me quite likely the prosecution fails, that will simply give the loon bragging rights. Nutjob conspiracy theorists are best ignored.
The prosecution affords us all a good laugh, and given that Shrimpton has hateful views and perhaps brings my profession into disrepute my heart does not bleed for him; but the case seems to me a waste of public resources on a non problem. Also, if as appears to me quite likely the prosecution fails, that will simply give the loon bragging rights. Nutjob conspiracy theorists are best ignored.
Zeeky said:
S51 above isn't analogous to the PHA 1997 because S51(2) is clearly a subjective test and the PHA uses an objective one, ie "...ought to know".
Arguing that MS ought to know better isn't going to help the CPS.
Sorry, I didn't communicate my point particularly well.Arguing that MS ought to know better isn't going to help the CPS.
The PHA has 3 statutory defences which, if engaged, make the test in s1(1) moot, as the actual Harassment is accepted. The defences can then be used to justify that harassment. The defence and case I thought relevant here concerns this:
PHA 1997 said:
(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—
(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
The case is Hayes v Willoughby 2013 - http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/17.html(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
The question dealt with by the court effectively boiled down to whether a subjective belief gave unfettered access to the defence, regardless of whether that belief was based upon anything rational.
This is why I see some common purpose in the s51 case and that above.
Lord Sumption had the following thoughts in p13 (my bold);
Hayes v Willoughby said:
"It cannot be the case that the mere existence of a belief, however absurd, in the mind of the harasser that he is detecting or preventing a possibly non-existent crime, will justify him in persisting in a course of conduct which the law characterises as oppressive. Some control mechanism is required, even if it falls well short of requiring the alleged harasser to prove that his alleged purpose was objectively reasonable"
He went on to hold;Hayes v Willoughby p14 said:
"I do not doubt that in the context of section 1(3)(a) purpose is a subjective state of mind. But in my opinion, the necessary control mechanism is to be found in the concept of rationality...A test of rationality, by comparison, applies a minimum objective standard to the relevant person's mental processes. It imports a requirement of good faith, a requirement that there should be some logical connection between the evidence and the ostensible reasons for the decision, and (which will usually amount to the same thing) an absence of arbitrariness, of capriciousness or of reasoning so outrageous in its defiance of logic as to be perverse"
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to compare the two offences. What I am comparing is that they are two situations where the belief is the critical part. It would seem strange were someone under the PHA be unable to rely on an irrational belief, whereas someone bomb hoaxing under s51 could.A distinction in my eyes is in the burdens, as in the PHA the defendant would have to illustrate their rationality whereas it would be for the prosecution to undermine the belief in s51.
Considering the depth of his ramblings I don't see the prosecution undermining his beliefs in this case. My musings above are just that, as per usual!
The CPS can undermine the beliefs in the sense of showing that they are plainly irrational, but not, I think, in the sense of showing that the loon does not hold the beliefs that he claims to hold.
I am not sure that the Willoughby line will work for the CPS here. We are a of course long way from the issues in a plea of self defence to a murder charge, but in that context the belief in imminent attack can be as subjective as you like. I know pretty much Jack about criminal law, and I CBA to look this up, but would have thought that the issue of whether the belief can be perverse but still afford a defence to the charge of murder would have come up and been ruled on by now.
Back in context, we all know that criminal law usually construes penal statutes in the manner most favourable to the citizen and least favourable to the State. The argument here would be that if Parliament had intended to criminalise irrational belief in a bomb threat, it would have done so in terms.
There may be case law on this, but as I say it's not my field and I CBA to research the point. Maybe Zeeky knows of a case or two on the subject.
I am not sure that the Willoughby line will work for the CPS here. We are a of course long way from the issues in a plea of self defence to a murder charge, but in that context the belief in imminent attack can be as subjective as you like. I know pretty much Jack about criminal law, and I CBA to look this up, but would have thought that the issue of whether the belief can be perverse but still afford a defence to the charge of murder would have come up and been ruled on by now.
Back in context, we all know that criminal law usually construes penal statutes in the manner most favourable to the citizen and least favourable to the State. The argument here would be that if Parliament had intended to criminalise irrational belief in a bomb threat, it would have done so in terms.
There may be case law on this, but as I say it's not my field and I CBA to research the point. Maybe Zeeky knows of a case or two on the subject.
Public policy question: The law protects us from malicious bomb hoaxers. Should it protect us from bewildered loonies?
I wonder if the Robin Hood Airport joke bomb threat case has any bearing on this. There the bloke was not a loony. He was taking the piss. He was wrongly convicted by some idiot Magistrate and rightly cleared on appeal. I read the judgment in that case but have now forgotten what it says.
I wonder if the Robin Hood Airport joke bomb threat case has any bearing on this. There the bloke was not a loony. He was taking the piss. He was wrongly convicted by some idiot Magistrate and rightly cleared on appeal. I read the judgment in that case but have now forgotten what it says.
I wouldn't suggest that the harassment case would have any bearing on this one, other than there being a mildly interesting discussion on the place (if any) for an irrationality test in s51.
If you take s51 on face value, it would allow someone with capacity but moderate mental problems to continue making hoaxes into perpetuity, as long as they didn't believe them to be false (subject to any other laws, of course (harassment being one...
).
If you take s51 on face value, it would allow someone with capacity but moderate mental problems to continue making hoaxes into perpetuity, as long as they didn't believe them to be false (subject to any other laws, of course (harassment being one...
).Breadvan72 said:
Public policy question: The law protects us from malicious bomb hoaxers. Should it protect us from bewildered loonies?
I wonder if the Robin Hood Airport joke bomb threat case has any bearing on this. There the bloke was not a loony. He was taking the piss. He was wrongly convicted by some idiot Magistrate and rightly cleared on appeal. I read the judgment in that case but have now forgotten what it says.
He was dealt with under a Communication offence, if I remember rightly.I wonder if the Robin Hood Airport joke bomb threat case has any bearing on this. There the bloke was not a loony. He was taking the piss. He was wrongly convicted by some idiot Magistrate and rightly cleared on appeal. I read the judgment in that case but have now forgotten what it says.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff