ChatterBank9 mins ago
Aiding And Abetting
Has the crime aiding and abetting been committed if someone lets a suspect know he is being investigated.
The crime originally committed was fraud and the suspect had no idea the police were investigating him before he was told by the 3rd party.
The suspect finding out he was being investigated before being arrested gave him the opportunity hide, destroy and conceal evidence.
The crime originally committed was fraud and the suspect had no idea the police were investigating him before he was told by the 3rd party.
The suspect finding out he was being investigated before being arrested gave him the opportunity hide, destroy and conceal evidence.
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jv208. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's not 'aiding and abetting'. It might be 'attempting to pervert the course of justice' but that would depend upon the circumstances. If I was to tell a mate simply that 'the police have been asking questions about you and your money dealings' it's extremely unlikely that I could be convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
oo-er !
assisting an offender- I think BuenChoco's copy of SMith and Hogan must be lacking that chapter
Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.
Practically speaking when the police were looking for one of my tenants I was careful to point out that I knew exactly what assisting an offender meant and I didnt know where the little blighter was.
ON the facts given I can see big evidential problems
and it sounds that the perp was acquitted - you say he destroyed and concealed evidence
however this charge does get up and run
here is Dale Cregan's gran getting time in the slammer for helping him
http://
assisting an offender- I think BuenChoco's copy of SMith and Hogan must be lacking that chapter
Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.
Practically speaking when the police were looking for one of my tenants I was careful to point out that I knew exactly what assisting an offender meant and I didnt know where the little blighter was.
ON the facts given I can see big evidential problems
and it sounds that the perp was acquitted - you say he destroyed and concealed evidence
however this charge does get up and run
here is Dale Cregan's gran getting time in the slammer for helping him
http://
>>>does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution
It's the 'intent' that's hard to prove. If I was simply say to someone (as, indeed I have, on several occasions), "So what have you been up to, old chum? I hear the Old Bill have been asking questions about you", I would have no idea of whether the person I was talking to had actually committed any offence, so it would be incredibly difficult to show that I had any intention to pervert the course of justice. (i.e. I can't 'know or believe' someone to be guilty of an offence if I'm totally ignorant of any offence having occurred)
Further, if that person was to then destroy all evidence of the offence having been committed in the first place, nobody (irrespective of how much assistance they had given to him) could be be convicted of assisting him because there would be no proof that any offence had ever occurred in the first place.
It's the 'intent' that's hard to prove. If I was simply say to someone (as, indeed I have, on several occasions), "So what have you been up to, old chum? I hear the Old Bill have been asking questions about you", I would have no idea of whether the person I was talking to had actually committed any offence, so it would be incredibly difficult to show that I had any intention to pervert the course of justice. (i.e. I can't 'know or believe' someone to be guilty of an offence if I'm totally ignorant of any offence having occurred)
Further, if that person was to then destroy all evidence of the offence having been committed in the first place, nobody (irrespective of how much assistance they had given to him) could be be convicted of assisting him because there would be no proof that any offence had ever occurred in the first place.
Well it depends on the circumstances of course Chris
if you were Pc Chris you may be in trouble
http://
if you were Pc Chris you may be in trouble
http://
1 to 4 of 4
