When are you allowed to break the law? Necessity and Lawful Excuse.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Can you get away with breaking the law? Yes; but you need to know how.
#artoflaw #necessary
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.
Founded by Alan Robertshaw and @Blackbeltbarrister
ua-cam.com/users/bl...
My late mum smashed a car window with a tin of baked beans to get a clearly overheated baby out of a hot car in a car park. Luckily a police officer saw her do it, ran over and assisted, called an ambulance etc. She wasn't charged with anything. This was a long time ago, that hot summer of 1976. I don't know if the father was charged with anything. My mum swore at him and she wasn't normally given to effing and blinding.
There was a case about 20 years ago of someone drunk driving a friend to A&E. He was stopped _on the return journey!_ Even then the mags agreed with necessity, but at appeal the court found that driving _to_ A&E was necessity but home again was not.
I’d agree with them.
Al you are by far the best when it comes to explaining Law
It depends on how much money you have.
Much more than vaguely interesting. Fascinating, in fact.
Great backdrop. Some of the examples that you give are a good rationale for a jury to vote "according to their conscience". Yes it was manslaughter, yes it was a broken window, but it would be a perverse jury that gave a verdict only on fact.
I would pay to listen to Alan talk, thanks for all the interesting videos that you have done
Sensible heads can commit to applying the law in such cases where it just wouldn't make sense. Being flexible is a good thing, but being arbitrary can be a negative.
Love your videos for their slightly eccentric, rambling style; the locations (I'm an Essex boy living in Denver, Colorado for the last 28 years) and the somewhat historical slant on the subject matter. Thanks and keep the content coming. Good luck with the 25K (and beyond)
This was so interesting and so clearly explained - thanks!
Good evening to you. Thank you for another video. And I really enjoyed hearing about this, something I have wondered about for a long while. Being an Amritdhari Sikh this could be useful information to me. I hope that you are well. Glorious scenery again. Thank you. 😊.
A video on coercion and duress, the differences between the two and the limits on when you can claim them would be interesting.
Wonderful content as usual. Another really vaguely interesting piece. Thanks.
Hi Al! Enjoyed that! Looking forward to Falmouth! And more maritime stories please! I know you have them for us at some point! ❤
Great video, very interesting and entertaining. I would love to get the legal perspective on ‘The Trolley Problem’, especially as moral philosophers tend to disagree.
You’re a joy to watch ❤
Thank you Al.
I get a kick out of you. Plus I appreciate your knowledge.
Thanks yet again Al!!
"Someone left a hotdog in a car". 🤣Sorry, that tickled me.
#AlwaysUseful #AlwaysInteresting #AlwaysAccurate
- Like
- Subscribe
- Share
- Comment
@@ianmason. Indeed! 🤣
I presume "proportionate" should meant "relative to the expected effect"... sabotaging an oil rig, for example, stands a change of just stopping oil! Blocking a public road is a form a protest, civil disobedience, but it doesn't actually stop any oil, so its cost is not proportionate to any expected effect. Proof of problem does not equal proof of solution. I recall a case from a few years ago where a guy was arrested with bolt cutters (or something) after breaking onto an RAF base where his goal was to sabotage a couple of Saudi owned planes that were being services before returning to carry out atrocities in Yemen, and this was held as a valid defence... we had seen pictured of bombed school buses, starving babies etc, which those planes were directly taking part in achieving. If he had've reached those planes before being arrested, his actions would have had a direct effect. I brought it to the attention of somebody I know who's been very active in the Palestinian liberation movement here who has since been using it to shut down Israeli owned weapons factories here in England implicated in the ongoing atrocities, which is good to see. Our courts seem to be the last place we can successfully fight and have an effect.
But the issue, even with the oil rig, is how much difference would it make? Surely we must assess the expected warming before and after their actions and then say whether the difference is large enough for the action toto be proportionate. Since, the entire UK sinking under the waves wouldn't change the climate predictions by as much as 0.1C according to ANY leading climate scientist, how can a reasonable jury judge the actions proportionate?
Now let me think of something that is lawful yet evil. No! Can’t think of anything
Thank you 🙏
Not long ago the same Asda vehicle that drove through me on an angle without using brakes was parked out side Marina I reside, this time it was being driven by ex police who joined and left because he was not allowed to use excessive police force.
Apparently all police who were educated that way left.
So me being me on gack of that lesson to see a police officer kick someone in the head.
Straight away after watching new video of assault on Police
Once a tazer as done its job, the follow up Police officer kicked him in the head to say stay down.
In a court of law perfectly legal
And as you said previously if a judge was to order a guilty verdict.
The jury 2024 could argue and stand up and say.
And I quote Judge dont tell us what to say we were sworn in as independent to the crime to give verdict
All the while the guy kicked in the head might reply the officer was only doing his duty beyond the call of his actions, and I plead guilty
It's worth reading 'Wreck of the whale ship Essex' by Owen Chase. Gives an interesting view of necessity.
I'm obviously totally on the whale's side on that one.
Cannibalism and the Common Law is also a great book.
Ooh I was in Newquay a couple of weeks ago. Lashing it down, it was 🌧️ Nice Italian restaurant there with a great view. X
If prosecuting people for pushing someone off a ladder to save others is "not in the public interest" due to the necessity of saving others, then why isn't it allowed in a defence? Following this logic, prosecuting someone for shooting down an airplane that is about to crash into a building also wouldn't be "in the public interest", nor would the cannibalism case which I guess was found to be in the public interest. If the CPS don't charge these cases because of "necessity" of the action, then "necessity" is a de facto defence to killing, even if it isn't a de jure one. Seems like a weird loophole, why not just allow it as a defence?
I’d call 999 to let police know what I’m about to do to save an animal or child. I’m Canadian so to be honest it’s 911 here.
Graffiti would not prevent anything and so using these excuses would in my opinion be untenable.
The Dog in a hot car thing happened to me on a very hot day
Glad you were saved.
@richardpentelow5111 yeah at first people just thought I was just a regular window licker
@@SkinwalkerFarm 🥹
Honestly thought you were saying "It's a defence against any crime except for the N-word" and could not figure out how that would work 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Numerous pictures of physical contact between police and protesters/rioters. Can a member of the public have an excuse for preventing police using batons ect?
A question if I may Alan, I was watching a programme about a fictional court case last night and in it they put the defendant under hypnosis to get information from him. Is evidence obtained under hypnosis admissible in a court of law?
I very much doubt it, I certainly hope not!!!
Can you use headbutt as defence when attacker too close for you to use your arms etc
Fascinating to see what English law says about that darn "trolley". Are you going for BSB members to take you over your 25k subscriber goal? 😀
Any chance you can talk about the signs on car parks/ supermarket car parks saying that the company is not liable for damage or theft made and if that is true ?
As mentioned above, Dan's done quite a few vids on this.
IIRC, it’s not possible to exclude loss or damage caused by an employee’s negligence (English law). Scottish law may differ, but I saw a liability exclusion notice with that information on it in Scotland this week.
@artmedialaw cheers yeah saw loads of vids about parking fines could not find anything about car park liability yet anyway
Very interesting. Many thanks. Will you be commenting on the recent directing ter rorism conviction?
Does "Lawful excuse" cover recording conversations where there is a strong suspicion of fraud being committed?
Recording conversations isn't a crime. It might be a breach of privacy or a breach of data protection, but those are civil matters.
@@thomasdalton1508 Thanks. I hadn't understood that Lawful Excuse only protects from prosecution of a criminal act, not a civil act. Is there any equivalent for civil matters? E.g. "Civil Lawful Excuse" e.g. individuals had a good reason to breach civil law for some other goal like proving fraud?
When are you going to do a presentation on
How do some solicitors and barristers justify defending people or corporations who are clearly guilty, eg post office as an example
1. Presumption of innocence: In most legal systems, everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. Lawyers ensure this right is upheld.
2. Right to a fair trial: Every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes proper legal representation.
3. Testing the prosecution's case: Defense lawyers ensure the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, maintaining the integrity of the justice system.
4. Protecting constitutional rights: Lawyers defend their clients' legal and constitutional rights, regardless of guilt or innocence.
5. Mitigating circumstances: Even if guilty, there may be factors that could affect sentencing or charges.
6. Ethical obligation: Lawyers have a professional duty to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the law.
7. Preventing wrongful convictions: Sometimes seemingly "obvious" guilt can be mistaken.
8. Upholding the adversarial system: This system relies on both sides presenting their strongest case for justice to be served.
Define "clearly guilty"? A barrister cannot mislead the court, so they cannot defend someone who admits they are guilty. However, who gets to decide that someone is "clearly guilty"? You? What's your standard for that?
Another great video. I am sick to death of AI voices and stock footage which makes little sense. At 10:16 actually under UK law well English and
10:18 well Welsh law no you can't (Whilst talking about aircraft)
I am not a lawyer - but what is the point of sending up a fighter jet at more than the speed of sound (i.e. considerable cost), armed with air to air missiles etc. if the order to shoot down an aircraft believed to be on a 9/11 style mission cannot be given and the plane brought down?
At sea doing a cannibalism video. I think yes.
Brilliant. Except why "the M word for the "D word". Bit prissy
UA-cam is really weird about what words it allows. It's also quite inconsistent. But it can automatically strike videos if it detects certain words; hence all the euphemisms now.
@artmedialaw It's so sad too, because often the enormity of the crime/act means that word is needed
A law is just a political opinion, with a violent threat. When a political opinion is immoral, you don't need an excuse to ignore it. You don't need to answer to anyone.
Could you not use that argument in relation to the paying of tax? That is, you believe the Government will waste the money it intends to take from you, or will use it on something that you believe it should not be spending money on? There is clear examples of the previous Government wasting huge amounts of our money rather than spending it sensibly. I have no doubt the current Government will be doing the very same thing. Hence the witholding of money because you reasonably believe it to be evil?
Not paying tax isn't usually a crime (the exception being council tax). Falsifying your tax return is, but if you declare everything correctly and just don't pay the tax bill when it arrives, that's not a crime. They'll go to court and get an writ so they can send the bailiffs round, but you won't be arrested.
I think the biggest problem you would have justifying tax evasion that way is that you not paying your tax doesn't fix the problem in any way. The government will spend the same amount. Everyone else will just have to pay more to make up for you not paying your fair share. While the video points out that your attempt doesn't have to be successful, it does have to have some reasonable chance of succeeding. You are just avoiding paying your share and nobody is going to think that you having to pay your share is evil.
Paying of Income tax is mandatory under U.K, under the Income Tax Act 2007. You would be evading income tax and carries a 6 month sentence and a fine of up to £5k. If you don’t pay the tax after being sentenced your sentence can be increased and an unlimited fine imposed. Read the legislation
@@classicraceruk1337 Of course it is mandatory. That doesn't mean not doing it is a criminal offence. The Income Tax Act 2007 is one of the longest acts on the books - there is a particular section you want to refer me to? The main offence of tax evasion isn't in that act, but the Taxes Management Act 1970. That creates the offense of "fraudulent evasion of income tax". The key word there is "fraudulent". If you are honest about the tax you owe but just don't pay it, there is no fraud. That's just non-payment of a debt.
@@thomasdalton1508 I have already told you the penalties, it is a criminal offence to withhold tax payments otherwise known as evasion , can be tried and sentenced in a Crown Court. ( a criminal court)It’s all in the Act of Parliament on the Government Website. Good luck playing your little games with HMRC. They can fine you just for putting your self assessment in late even if you owe no tax.
@@classicraceruk1337 I'm not playing any games with anyone. I didn't say you don't have to pay income tax. I said it isn't a criminal offence not to. Most things you are required to do aren't enforced criminally. I've cited the tax evasion statute and explained why it doesn't apply to simple non-payment. If you have a different offence that you think does apply, then cite it.
Alan - as a barrister should you be admitting to keeping criminal friends? Some politicians may argue that today's animal rights grafiti artist, tomorrow's potential arms smuggler! 😁😁😁
Doesn't seem right that the definition of 'greater evil' should be left to any random jury (or judge) on any random day. It means you never really know if you have a defence until you know the disposition of the jury at your trial. You should really have a way to know at the time you take any action whether it is lawful or not.
You never know that. The law is continually changing in minor ways. This is at the heart of the UK system. Even in other systems, judicial imterpretation can change over time.
First 🎉
Oh no, Dan's wife just did the unthinkable lol.
@@Calvi36 😂
So the post 9/11 shooting down a hijacked airplane, wouldn't that fall under military action as I doubt many civilians would be in a position to shoot down an airplane? In the USA I think it might be justifiable as defense of others for a civilian to do so if they were in a position to do that, as the hijackers are committing a forcible felony and a reasonable person would believe that their actions would endanger others.
Generally, when the military acts within your own country, they are assisting the civilian authorities rather than taking military action. For example, when the SAS stormed the Iranian embassy to rescue hostages in 1980, they did so at the invitation of the police. There was no martial law declared.
The issue there is: can the President order the Air Force to shoot down a civil airliner to protect people on the ground? In 9/11 Bush gave no orders to shoot down; however the passengers on one plane did crash it - after phone calls with people on the ground telling them what was happening.
@@_Mentat I think Alan was quite specific in his qualifier that he was only talking about if this happened under the jurisdiction of English and Welsh law, so we're getting off topic here.
So you can say "Cannibal" but you can't say "Murder". UA-cam, being a monopoly, has an unhealthy effect on our language, and we should resist it. Murder, Death, Kill. Please stop saying "m-word", "d-word", "k-word", "un-alive", which submits to the compromising of the English language. Otherwise, an enlightening video. I didn't know about the alternative options thing, or that you could drive under the influence to get someone to hospital.
If you're unfeasibly wealthy, you can do what you like. It helps if you're related to royals or have friends in high political office, of course.
That's not true. Plenty of rich, influential people have been convicted of crimes.
@@thomasdalton1508If you believe that everyone is treated the same in the justice system, then you are naive.
@@lrdisco2005 They may not be treated exactly the same, but that doesn't mean rich people can do whatever they like.
@@thomasdalton1508 What a wonderful sweet world you live in.
@@lrdisco2005 So you aren't aware of any rich people ever facing consequences for their actions?
For the climate lunatics the part that was most sad was that their actions resulted in far more emissions and polution... Both through a requirement to replace damaged property and the additional vehicle use which occurred as a result of the disruptions as well as the loss of productivity generally for the disrupted organisations. The other one that was interesting for me is; Police regularly prioritise their own safety over public as a part of self defence. Surely that would hit that trap?
A police car at the traffic lights undertook me yesterday and shot a red light with blues and twos on persuing the car in front of me who also shot the red light. Both technically broke the law, ostensibly the police car made a more dangerous decision and the lights had been red for longer so in court, could it be argued that the decision to further expose the public to danger when it was clear that the first car by that time was out of danger and posed no existing threat but dupplicating the threat with greater veracity. Seemingly the pursuit was to call to account a violation by committing an identical one. Should the case be dismissed or should both be prosecuted on their own merit. (As in the case of the alleged Manchester airport assaults?)
Can you repeat that in English please?
@@yorkiemikeyes of course!
Wouldn’t it be a self defence argument if you shot down a plane that was going to kill a lot of people not a necessity defence?
In the same sense that if a police marksman shoots a suicide bomber running toward a school it’s considered mutual self defence wouldn’t it be considered lawful for a Jet plane to shoot the pilot of an aircraft intending to crash it into a group of people arguing that he was aiming at the pilot and the passengers just happened to be in the way. Hypothetically speaking the police marksman might also hit other people attempting to stop the suicide bomber. For that matter of a suicide bomber might not actually be a criminal. It could be another child who has just happened to have an explosive vest strapped to him and has been sent into school to see his friends. Maybe he doesn’t even know that it’s going to explode.
How does mutual self defence work when other people are or might become collateral damage in your attempts to defend a second person?
8:38 "Necessity is a defence to all crimes except the M-word."
Masturbation isn't a crime, silly!
Regards to Manchester, can you defend yourself again a police officer using disproportionate Force
As with everything, it depends on the facts in each case.
Leaving Manchester aside, as we don't know all the facts yet, and there is an independent investigation underway so we need to be patient.
Where a police officer doesn't have lawful grounds for his actions, then you have the right to self-defense. The police have a broad degree of discretion, but it isn't unlimited.
Admitting to being woke probably knocked off 500. I know we aren't on the same page. Goodbye
Who should I use to sue the police