BBC News - 'Fresh proposals' planned over cyber-monitoring
ukcrypto at sourcetagged.ian.co.uk
Tue May 28 17:21:41 BST 2013
On May 28, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Francis Davey wrote:
> 2013/5/28 Roland Perry <lists at internetpolicyagency.com>
> Because we are corresponding by email, not the web.
> Bah. I think in 2013 I can expect the notorious Roland Perry to be
> able to look something up on the web. It is not as if the world wide
> web is rather new to you. I see that on ukcrypto I will have to
> quote the relevant statute rather than merely citing it.
> Fair enough, but that wasn't clear from the earlier posting.
> That's why I make a practice of citing sources, so that people who
> want to know more can read more.
> ps Why is this statute rarely used when husbands threaten to kill
> their ex-partners, with the police relying instead upon harassment
> I don't know. Ask the CPS.
> I suspect because it is much harder to prove. The prosecution will
> have to prove a specific intent that the victim fear that the threat
> will be carried out (i.e. that someone will be killed). A defendant
> might argue that he only meant the victim to fear they would be
> beaten to a pulp.
Yup, the case in point requires proof of intent whereas harassment is
a matter of fact (i.e. a strict liability offence), towhit:
> Prohibition of harassment.
> (1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
> (a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
> (b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
> (2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of
> conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment
> of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same
> information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment
> of the other.
2Offence of harassment.
(1)A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is
guilty of an offence.
No mention of intent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ukcrypto