Assisting an offender?
Discussion
Pica-Pica said:
gmasterfunk said:
Suspicion of.. ?
‘Charged with assisting an offender’, I believe.Interesting though if there was compelling evidence that he had helped, but then the offender was found not guilty for some reason.
BertBert said:
Interesting though if there was compelling evidence that he had helped, but then the offender was found not guilty for some reason.
read that back Bert - it's absurd. Plod are laying on the muscle but - surely obviously - no crime or wrong person = no offence to assist with same
peterperkins said:
Reasonable grounds to suspect...
If the Police came round to your house and found a suspected murderer there it would be reasonable to suspect you had been assisting that individual in some way. Evade capture, lie low, food and shelter etc etc.
What if you didn’t know your flat mate is a suspected offender? And how do they prove you were knowingly assisting him?If the Police came round to your house and found a suspected murderer there it would be reasonable to suspect you had been assisting that individual in some way. Evade capture, lie low, food and shelter etc etc.
Mr Miata said:
peterperkins said:
Reasonable grounds to suspect...
If the Police came round to your house and found a suspected murderer there it would be reasonable to suspect you had been assisting that individual in some way. Evade capture, lie low, food and shelter etc etc.
What if you didn’t know your flat mate is a suspected offender? And how do they prove you were knowingly assisting him?If the Police came round to your house and found a suspected murderer there it would be reasonable to suspect you had been assisting that individual in some way. Evade capture, lie low, food and shelter etc etc.
Canon_Fodder said:
BertBert said:
Interesting though if there was compelling evidence that he had helped, but then the offender was found not guilty for some reason.
read that back Bert - it's absurd. Plod are laying on the muscle but - surely obviously - no crime or wrong person = no offence to assist with same
Canon_Fodder said:
read that back Bert - it's absurd.
Plod are laying on the muscle but - surely obviously - no crime or wrong person = no offence to assist with same
In what way?Plod are laying on the muscle but - surely obviously - no crime or wrong person = no offence to assist with same
Imagine that the evidence against both is compelling that they did it.
Then the offender gets off on a procedural miss-step. Does the assistant still stand a chance of getting done for something or other?
Heres the rules
Where a person has committed [F1a relevant offence], any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some [F2other relevant offence], does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.
[F3(1A)In this section and section 5 below, “ relevant offence ” means—
(a)an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law,
(b)an offence for which a person of 18 years or over (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by section 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980).]
More here
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/secti...
Where a person has committed [F1a relevant offence], any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some [F2other relevant offence], does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.
[F3(1A)In this section and section 5 below, “ relevant offence ” means—
(a)an offence for which the sentence is fixed by law,
(b)an offence for which a person of 18 years or over (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by section 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980).]
More here
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/secti...
BertBert said:
In what way?
Imagine that the evidence against both is compelling that they did it.
Then the offender gets off on a procedural miss-step. Does the assistant still stand a chance of getting done for something or other?
It’s all about the belief or intent - if the person knew or believed the suspect to have committed the crime (“here, can you burn these clothes I was wearing when I killed xyz”), then they commit the offence regardless of whether or not the primary suspect is found guilty or not. The assisting an offender is a standalone offence.Imagine that the evidence against both is compelling that they did it.
Then the offender gets off on a procedural miss-step. Does the assistant still stand a chance of getting done for something or other?
Draxindustries1 said:
No one on this forum has privy to information the police have on this other guy. No one knows what part in this heinous crime he had.
Instead of speculation just wait for the evidence in court..
Well, if we are not allowed to speculate about stuff we don't know much/anything about, there won't be much left of Pistonheads!Instead of speculation just wait for the evidence in court..
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff