Criminal

Family

Wills, Probate & Trusts

Employment

Conveyancing & Property

Immigration

Personal Injury

Consumer

Company & Commercial

Libel & Defamation

The Use of DNA in Criminal Cases

Cottaging and Cruising Laws in the UK

Fines and Punishment for Dropping Litter

UK Laws Relating to Euthanasia or Assisted Dying

Causing Death by Dangerous Driving

Sexual Harm Prevention Orders (SHPOs)

Is it illegal to drink alcohol in public?

Is it illegal to own and keep a weapon in your own home?

Prison Sentences - Is Life Imprisonment Really for Life?

A Guide to Magistrates' Court Trials

Breach of the Peace Explained

What is Sarah's Law?

Is it better to plead guilty even if you are not? LocalSolicitors.com

Is it better to plead guilty even if you are not?

You need to report it. Even if the defendant hasn't instigated the messages, if they relate to your involvement in a case as a witness, the sender may be guilty of the offence of witness intimidation or indeed other offences in their own right. The obtaining of the evidence is the job of the police.

What constitutes indirect contact in a restraining order? How can it be proved that the defendant is behind malicious communications?

It is possible for a person to be charged with handling stolen goods without the prosecution of the thief. If the ingredients of the offence can be proved, ie that the goods were stolen and that the handler knew or believed that to be the case, then a prosecution could be proceeded with. Note, that a mere suspicion that the goods may have been stolen would not be enough.

The Crown Prosecution Service apply a two part test in deciding whether to prosecute. The first part of the test is as to whether there is a 'realistic prospect of conviction'. The second part of the test is as to whether the prosecution is in the public interest. It would be unusual to bring a prosecution against the handler and not the thief but I can think of some cirmcumstances where applying the above tests to the two individuals, this might occur. If for instance, the thief had no previous convictions, whilst the handler had a history of offending, the thief might be offered a caution whilst the handler was prosecuted.

If there was not an obvious reason as to why the thief and the handler were being treated differently, I would want to know why and consder arguing the issue.

Can you be prosecuted for handling stolen goods if person who stole items isn't prosecuted for theft?

Is it better to plead guilty even if you are not?

undefined Solicitor Answers

Related Questions