BBC News - 'Fresh proposals' planned over cyber-monitoring

[Roland Perry]

In article 
<CAEWR3kuM2k+ZDVWshDMSHf3aiLwX4QvHU5fad=Mvjrbx66m0tw at mail.gmail.com>, 
Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> writes
>
>How does that work when the victim is your child that you haven't told 
>you wish to kill (the only person who knows being the estranged wife).
>
>Section 16 is *three* lines long and I linked to it. Why is it so hard 
>for people just to read the statutory material?

Because we are corresponding by email, not the web.

>"Threats to kill.
>
>A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending 
>that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other 
>or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on 
>conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten 
>years" 
>
>The "victim" is the person to whom you make the threat. The threat is 
>that you will kill someone (either the victim or someone else).

 >So if X says to Y "I am going to kill Z" intending that Y will fear
 >that X will indeed kill Z then the offence is made out.

Fair enough, but that wasn't clear from the earlier posting.

ps Why is this statute rarely used when husbands threaten to kill their 
ex-partners, with the police relying instead upon harassment law.
-- 
Roland Perry