Doormat-ologist needed

[Francis Davey]

On 8 September 2010 14:27, Clive D.W. Feather <clive at davros.org> wrote:
>
> Huh?
>
> Public network: offence defined by s.1(1), definition in s.1(5), penalty in
> s.1(7), paperwork in s.1(8), more definitions in s.2 et.seq.
> Private network: offence defined by s.1(2), definition in s.1(5), special
> case in s.1(6), penalty in s.1(7), paperwork in s.1(8), more definitions in
> s.2 et.seq.
>
> They are both illegal interception under the same basic rules with the same
> penalty. I bet an indictment just says "contrary to s.1 RIPA 2000".

Informations and indictments can be like that. In my profession we
tend to categorise each mode of commission as a separate offence
(because the elements will be different and so what needs to be proved
in court differs which is what is important to us), whether that is
"correct" is probably not worth arguing over.

It does mean that it is eternally frustrating to read an information
or indictment that *doesn't* specify which (sub-)offence is alleged.
Sometimes there can be a considerable difference between them.

-- 
Francis Davey