Quote:
Originally Posted by jambutty
The police could target parents and spouses as accessories to a crime. Don’t tell me that the wife or girl friend hasn’t a clue about where that £1,000 ring came from or that brand new plasma TV that she watches Corrie on? The same applies to a parent of a kid on the dole. Just where did that iPod come from or that new jazzy mobile phone. If a parent believes the usual, “my mate give it me or I found it” then they must be plain stupid.
|
How would that make the parent an accessory? Where is the evidence? Truth is, it's very difficult for a prosecutor to prove that someone had a clue. Unless you've had a major change in the laws of the UK, being stupid or clueless is not a chargeable offense. Proving that some is an accessory generally requires the prosecutor to prove that they had actual knowledge of a crime. Good luck with that one!
jambutty, it is morally wrong to imply guilt by association without evidence.
Notice that you mentioned magistrate's courts. It is my understanidng from what I read that they are limited to sentences of less than a year (for multiple offenses) or six months (for a single offense). Serious crimes are still eligible for jury trial. Also, even judges are unlikely to convict unless the evidence of someone being an accessory (or receiving good they know to have been stolen) is quite clear. In case of a conviction, they would presumably be sent to prison. As far as I am aware, the law does not currently allow a sentence that would force them to pay for another's incarceration.
A helpful link to info on jury trial and magistrates in the UK:
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-ri...ue/venue.shtml