|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 6:49:59 GMT
i realize that you know nothing about the law, but, your hallucinations will NEVER become reality Try reading some English case law on the subject. Once in custody, no-one can be held responcible for the actions of a third party. Had the two boys been on the roof at the time, then they were part of the same agency, but as soon as Bently was arrested, he was not part of the gang. The police lied about this in court because they knew telling the truth would have meant Bently would have gone free under English law* *free of the murder charge, he would have still had to face housebreaking charges. I wonder if the rule that "common purpose" ends once someone is under arrest rule still holds today (or if indeed it ever did wihout qualification)? I can't remember having to grapple with that strange idea when I studied criminal law - but as that was 25 years ago it is perhaps not a surprise. But that principle clearly had a bearing on the decision to pardon Bentley more than 40 years later. this site gives a fairly good account including the following:
.....The case called for a particularly careful direction and review of the evidence relevant to (i) the existence and nature of any agreement or understanding between the defendants; (ii) its scope and purpose, and (iii) its duration and possible termination.
That last was of special importance since Bentley's defence rested strongly on the contention that if, contrary to his assertion, there had ever been any joint agreement or understanding to resist arrest by violence, he had dissociated himself from it, reliance being placed on a number of facts already referred to.
Whether, properly directed, the jury would have found that Bentley had done enough to withdraw and signify his withdrawal from the enterprise which they had to have found to exist between him and Craig could not be known.
But it was an important limb of his defence and it was clear that the judge should have given the jury a careful direction on it. He gave none.
That absence of direction was the second main ground of appeal against conviction, but failed, apparently on the basis that Bentley had insisted that he had not been under arrest when PC Miles had been shot.
That reasoning was not persuasive: the Crown case had been that he was under arrest at that time, and it was difficult to see how any answer given by Bentley could have any bearing on the legal question of whether he was under arrest. The Court of Criminal Appeal failed to grapple with that ground of appeal, which should have succeeded.
For those reasons Bentley's conviction was unsafe. The appeal would be allowed and the conviction quashed. "
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 8:23:01 GMT
I've had a quick look to see what I can find on line about common purpose and arrest, and the best I could find was this bit in WikipediaReading it together with the link I gave in my last post, it seems to suggest to me that Bentley's defence would have been that he voluntarily withdrew from the joint enterprise (by submitting to arrest). It would be odd indeed to conclude that everyone under arrest is automatically treated as having withdrawn - though of course the law does produce some odd results!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 11:39:43 GMT
I've had a quick look to see what I can find on line about common purpose and arrest, and the best I could find was this bit in WikipediaReading it together with the link I gave in my last post, it seems to suggest to me that Bentley's defence would have been that he voluntarily withdrew from the joint enterprise (by submitting to arrest). It would be odd indeed to conclude that everyone under arrest is automatically treated as having withdrawn - though of course the law does produce some odd results! your law of common purpose is similar to our law of parties. while i'm not as versed in your law as i am in ours, i do know that many elements are the same, particularly those which are just common sense. what rv is trying to argue is that, if two chaps conspire to rob a bank, and while on the way to do so, one of them is arrested for jaywalking or something, while the other continues on his way, the one arrested is no longer guilty of conspiring to rob the bank. such a notion is patently absurd on its face. the fact is that, if two clowns conspire to rob a bank, and only one goes to do so while the other stays home, the one staying home is guilty of bank robbery. there is nothing difficult to understand about such a simple fact
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 11:42:36 GMT
i also neglected to point out, if someone dies during the course of said bank robbery, the chap who stayed home is also guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed this applies even in the event that he specifically told the actual robber to make sure that no one got hurt again, there is NOTHING unfair about this is any way
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 11:48:47 GMT
Jumbo, I don't think RV is trying to argue that at all. English law says that if two or more people set out on a "common puirpose" enterprise and one withdraws, and makes it clear to the others that he is withdrawing, then he can't be held responsible for what happens later. That is the point that should have been explained to the jury in the Bentley case, and wasn't. I'm less confident than RV and Lin that the rule applies in every case when someone gets arrested.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 28, 2010 12:26:13 GMT
what rv is trying to argue is that, if two chaps conspire to rob a bank, and while on the way to do so, one of them is arrested for jaywalking or something, while the other continues on his way, the one arrested is no longer guilty of conspiring to rob the bank. No, that is nothing like what I am trying to argue. That is not what I said. Bently and Craig were breaking an entry. For which, the police caught him red handed. He was still under arrest for that crime and therefore no longer part of the common enterprise. Up to his arrest, he was still jointly responsible for the actions of that common enterprise. However, once arrested he is no longer part of the enterprise and he can no longer be held responsible for the actions of the common enterprise, because he is no longer part of that enterprise. Every crime he has commited up to that point still stands and he will be charged accordingly, but if anyone commits a new crime WHILST he is in custody cannot be held against him.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 13:45:01 GMT
Jumbo, I don't think RV is trying to argue that at all. English law says that if two or more people set out on a "common puirpose" enterprise and one withdraws, and makes it clear to the others that he is withdrawing, then he can't be held responsible for what happens later. That is the point that should have been explained to the jury in the Bentley case, and wasn't. I'm less confident than RV and Lin that the rule applies in every case when someone gets arrested. conceding the possiblity that this is true, it wouldn't apply. there is NO similarity between withdrawing and being forcibly removed. i don't see anywhere that the chap directly indicated that, of his own volition, he was withdrawing from the conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 13:48:03 GMT
what rv is trying to argue is that, if two chaps conspire to rob a bank, and while on the way to do so, one of them is arrested for jaywalking or something, while the other continues on his way, the one arrested is no longer guilty of conspiring to rob the bank. No, that is nothing like what I am trying to argue. That is not what I said. Bently and Craig were breaking an entry. For which, the police caught him red handed. He was still under arrest for that crime and therefore no longer part of the common enterprise. Up to his arrest, he was still jointly responsible for the actions of that common enterprise. However, once arrested he is no longer part of the enterprise and he can no longer be held responsible for the actions of the common enterprise, because he is no longer part of that enterprise. Every crime he has commited up to that point still stands and he will be charged accordingly, but if anyone commits a new crime WHILST he is in custody cannot be held against him. as i said, i am not totally versed in english law, but i would have to seriously doubt that such is the case, since it is so contrary to common sense. as i just posted, it could NOT apply in any case, unless the withdrawal was totally voluntary
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 13:50:06 GMT
tell you what. how about leading me to the common purpose sections of your law. if there is no speicific rule stating that an arrest ends the conspiracy, it obviously does not conspiracy, by definition, continues until EVERY element of the conspiracy has ended. conspiracy to rob a bank does NOT end when the bank has been robbed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 14:02:23 GMT
tell you what. how about leading me to the common purpose sections of your law. if there is no speicific rule stating that an arrest ends the conspiracy, it obviously does not conspiracy, by definition, continues until EVERY element of the conspiracy has ended. conspiracy to rob a bank does NOT end when the bank has been robbed. I also would like to know the rule. Suppose someone under arrest yells out an instruction to the others, as Bentley is alleged to have done. It would seem odd if his part in what happened next was just disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 14:58:58 GMT
tell you what. how about leading me to the common purpose sections of your law. if there is no speicific rule stating that an arrest ends the conspiracy, it obviously does not conspiracy, by definition, continues until EVERY element of the conspiracy has ended. conspiracy to rob a bank does NOT end when the bank has been robbed. I also would like to know the rule. Suppose someone under arrest yells out an instruction to the others, as Bentley is alleged to have done. It would seem odd if his part in what happened next was just disregarded. a good example would be a riot. they are contending that if a leader of the riot were arrested, and was screaming at everyone to burn down the city, he is not responsible for the city being burned. that notion is beyond absurd
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 16:03:17 GMT
If you take a look at my earlier link, the court that granted Bentley the posthumous pardon said that the jury hadn't been properly directed on the question of whether Bentley had withdrawn from the common enterprise to resist arrest by violence ; it did not go so far as to say there was a rule that someone under arrest was no longer taking part in the enterprise as a whole.
Within that link is the court's full judgement, which gives a full summary of the relevant caselaw, and I can't see that it supports what Lin and RV say.
We shall have to await further information from those who are more familiar with this area of English law than we are Jumbo!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 28, 2010 16:26:32 GMT
I have read a lot about this case, and particularly as I lived for a few years only ten minutes away from Derek Bentley's old home, have taken a lot of interest in it.
Basically I think that Craig ought to have been executed (yes, I know he was 16 but I'd lower the age of execution to 14) and Bentley should have spent a long time in prison.
Craig was totally the dominant partner in their relationship and Bentley was borderline on being subnormal.
Even Chief Justice Goddard, who sentenced Bentley to death, didn't believe that he would or should be executed.
He was just following procedure - yet another example of how robotic justice turns so easily into injustice.
Far from being the leader of the riot, Bentley was totally dominated by Craig, who was obsessed with the 'glamour' he imagined American gangsters to have.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 16:58:26 GMT
Agreed, Lin - it was just the suggestion that he should have been acquitted because he was under arrest at the time that sounded odd - and still does!
I hasten to add that I don't agree that Craig should have been hanged, only that he appears to have been the most culpable of the pair!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 28, 2010 17:41:01 GMT
a good example would be a riot. they are contending that if a leader of the riot were arrested, and was screaming at everyone to burn down the city, he is not responsible for the city being burned. that notion is beyond absurd Nope that is a pretty bad example. A person who screamed about burning down a city would be guilty on incitement to riot and would be guilty irrespective of whether a riot took place, he would not be responsible for A.N. other setting fire to the city, other than damage hed has actually done himself. Clearly their is no common enterprise because he has not planned anything with every Tom, Dick and Harry with a petrol bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 28, 2010 18:50:47 GMT
But how about (for example) a terrorist website that incites people to go out and plant bombs?
That site may influence people who don't even know each other to go out and separately commit bombings.
That would surely make the terrorist website responsible for their actions as well as the individual bombers?
Common purpose is very hard to define in practice sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 21:15:02 GMT
In the Bentley case the "common purpose" spoken about was to resist arrest, with violence if necessary. Sop I suppose it could be argued that once Bentley was under arrest, he could play no part in it, other than as accessory (aiding and abetting etc).
But it still seems odd!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 21:18:11 GMT
a good example would be a riot. they are contending that if a leader of the riot were arrested, and was screaming at everyone to burn down the city, he is not responsible for the city being burned. that notion is beyond absurd Nope that is a pretty bad example. A person who screamed about burning down a city would be guilty on incitement to riot and would be guilty irrespective of whether a riot took place, he would not be responsible for A.N. other setting fire to the city, other than damage hed has actually done himself. Clearly their is no common enterprise because he has not planned anything with every Tom, Dick and Harry with a petrol bomb. wrong lad. you are claiming that he can't be held responsible for any crime that he incites once he's been arrested. that's virtually verbatim from you
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 21:20:29 GMT
If you take a look at my earlier link, the court that granted Bentley the posthumous pardon said that the jury hadn't been properly directed on the question of whether Bentley had withdrawn from the common enterprise to resist arrest by violence ; it did not go so far as to say there was a rule that someone under arrest was no longer taking part in the enterprise as a whole. Within that link is the court's full judgement, which gives a full summary of the relevant caselaw, and I can't see that it supports what Lin and RV say. We shall have to await further information from those who are more familiar with this area of English law than we are Jumbo! i'll have to go back and read it better. i only did a cursory run through, and you are quite correct. there is nothing in their to support the contention that arrest ends a conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 21:24:00 GMT
I have read a lot about this case, and particularly as I lived for a few years only ten minutes away from Derek Bentley's old home, have taken a lot of interest in it. Basically I think that Craig ought to have been executed (yes, I know he was 16 but I'd lower the age of execution to 14) and Bentley should have spent a long time in prison. Craig was totally the dominant partner in their relationship and Bentley was borderline on being subnormal. Even Chief Justice Goddard, who sentenced Bentley to death, didn't believe that he would or should be executed. He was just following procedure - yet another example of how robotic justice turns so easily into injustice. Far from being the leader of the riot, Bentley was totally dominated by Craig, who was obsessed with the 'glamour' he imagined American gangsters to have. well hon, who is, or is not the leader, is irrelevant. ALL members of the conspiracy are equally guilty. the getaway driver is just as guilty as the mastermind. both of them conspired to commit a crime in which someone died, so obviously, both are equally guilty of murder. it really max nix what bentley said, or what anyone thought he meant.
|
|