False unsworn statement under Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.
If any person, in giving any testimony (either orally or in writing) otherwise than on oath, where required to do so by an order under section 2 of the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, makes a statement—
(a)which he knows to be false in a material particular, or
(b)which is false in a material particular and which he does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be
Continue reading “Perjury Act 1911”
I give a senario where this question could apply.
Where it is more than obvious that the purpose of the false statement was malicious, designed to divert Police attention away from one suspect and on to an innocent person, and with the intent of having that innocent person prosecuted and jailed.
Where due to the grave nature of the charges that would result from the false statement, the innocent person, if convicted would face a max term in jail of at least 10 years.
Continue reading “Policy On Prosecuting Witnesses Who Fabricate Witness Statements –”
False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict in a court case. Falsified evidence could be created by either side in a case (including the police/prosecution in a criminal case), or by someone sympathetic to either side. Misleading by suppressing evidence can also be considered a form of false evidence (by omission), however, in some cases, suppressed evidence is excluded because it cannot be proved the accused was aware of the items found or of their location. The analysis of evidence (forensic evidence) may also be forged if the person doing the forensic work finds it easier to fabricate evidence and test results than to perform the actual work involved. Parallel construction is a form of false evidence in which the evidence is truthful but its origins are untruthfully described, at times in order to avoid evidence being excluded as inadmissible due to unlawful means of procurement such as an unlawful search.
Continue reading “False evidence – Wikipedia”
Perverting the course of justice
If a false report you made has particularly serious consequences, the police could charge you with perverting the course of justice instead, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Police are more likely to charge you with this more serious offence, rather than wasting police time if:
- the false report was motivated by malice;
- you continued to stick to your false story, even when there were ample opportunities to retract;
- you falsely accused someone of a crime and they were charged and remanded in custody or tried, convicted and / or sentenced;
A demand with menaces will be regarded as unwarranted unless the person making the demand believes both of the following:
- That they had reasonable grounds for making the demand.
- That the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
How can it be shown the defendant believed the above two factors?
The test is subjective so when looking at the two factors above, it is the belief of the defendant which is important. Whether they are actually entitled to the money or property demanded is therefore not relevant.
With a view to make a gain or intent to cause a loss
Section 34 of TA 1968 defines gain and loss as including only gain and loss of money or other property.
Would demands of a sexual nature fall within the remit of the Theft Act?
Under s 34 of TA 1968, demands of a sexual nature would fall outside the remit of blackmail.
What is the maximum prison sentence for blackmail?
For the offence of blackmail under TA 1968, the maximum prison sentence is 14 years.
Continue reading “What is the maximum prison sentence for blackmail?”
For liability for blackmail to arise under TA 1968, the demand must be accompanied by menaces. These can be express or implied.
What is meant by menaces?
Menaces means that there must be some high degree of coercion to force an individual to undertake a particular course of action.
Do menaces have to be threats of physical violence?
Although menaces can include a threat of physical violence, other forms – such as a threat to expose a secret – can constitute blackmail for the purposes of TA 1968.
Does the individual who is making the demand have to be the same individual who will carry out the menaces?
There is no requirement to show that the individual who is making the demand is the same individual who is carrying out the menaces. Neither is it a requirement to show that the person making the demand is in a position to undertake the threatened action.
Continue reading “Factors to be proven in order to establish blackmail – InBrief.co.uk”
Blackmail can be a very serious offence which has strict rules in the UK. Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. The act explains UK blackmail law, in legal terms, to be when one makes unwarranted demands with menaces in order to attain personal gain or project loss on another. It does not matter whether the demands are possible or in what fashion the demands are made. These could be express, implied, written, spoken or through conduct.
If you meet the definition, then you may be liable of a blackmail charge unless you satisfy one of the defences. For example, if you had a reason to make your demands, you may not be charged with blackmail. Furthermore, you will not be charged if you do not meet any of elements required to satisfy the definition of blackmail which are as follows:
- That the defendant made a demand;
- With menaces;
- That the demand was unwarranted; or
- That the defendant has a view to make a gain for himself or another or have intent to cause a loss to another.
Many people tend to think that extortion and blackmail are the same. Extortion is a form of theft that occurs when the offender obtains money or property from someone using coercion. To constitute coercion, a threat of violence, destruction of property or improper government action has to be committed. Both extortion and blackmail are similar in that prosecutors and judges treat them as serious violations of the criminal laws.
Continue reading “Blackmail Law UK – Criminal Defence”
“[t]he crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person’s money or property.
In blackmail the threat might consist of physical injury to the threatened person or to someone loved by that person, or injury to a person’s reputation. In some cases the victim is told that an illegal act he or she had previously committed will be exposed if the victim fails to comply with the demand.
Although blackmail is generally synonymous with Extortion, some states distinguish the offenses by requiring that the former be in writing.
Blackmail is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.”
So, simply put, blackmail is a threat to harm someone (physically or emotionally) if they do not do something the blackmailer wants. In some states, blackmail must be in writing, and if it is not, it is called “extortion.”
Continue reading “Someone Is Trying to Blackmail Me, What Can I Do?”
(Programming parents need be effective in at least one of these measures, with the objective being to create psychological dependence and to prevent exposure to competing views of reality.)
- Isolation: Parents who have the most access to the children tend to be more effective at the brainwashing, but this is not a pre-requisite. Parents with little access can also alienate their children. (See my post: https://waiting4ethan.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/whose-fault-is-alienation-the-gender-question). The alienator will sabotage visits with the other parent one way or another to reduce their time, restrict communication, and screen phone calls. Gradually, the time the child spends with the Target Parent is reduced to zero. Isolation leads the child to becoming more and more dependent on the alienating parent. The negative messages about the Target Parent eventually become ‘the truth’ because there is no access to people who can offer the child any competing views.
Continue reading “PREREQUISITES TO BRAINWASHING: “