5 ms·

A lawyer paid by the private party fills the role of the government prosecutor, but the case is heard by the same judge and jury who would hear it in a state pr

A lawyer paid by the private party fills the role of the government prosecutor, but the case is heard by the same judge and jury who would hear it in a state prosecution. Until the 1980s this was how almost all criminal prosecutions worked in England, though by the end the "private prosecutor" was usually a police officer.

wonderwonder 3y ago
So a company with money and a good lawyer could really just essentially have you thrown in jail? Seems really not good.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  Yes, because often they are in control of all the evidence and/or can create evidence. In the 90s, I caught the technical head of a certain very large telecoms firm logging private IRC chats and then blackmailing the users, some of whom were gay and not out. When I made it clear I knew what was going on and that it needed to stop this person went on to fake logs of me hacking into said firm and sent them to the dean of the university where I was studying and there was a serious attempt to have me expelled and talk of criminal charges. I was only saved by the heads of the computing department who vouched for my good character and independently proved that the logs were fake.
  - conductr 3y ago
    Were you then able to prosecute him for this fraudulent conspiracy he manufactured? Is there any check and balance, like something seriously discouraging people from doing this nefariously? Is there any responsibility on the judge or jury to demand burden of evidence? As in the postmaster situation, if I were the judge or jury I first and foremost need to be convinced a crime occurred and money is missing. The fact a forensic accountant wasn’t required is still odd to me. I suppose they were glad to call guilty on circumstantial evidence or just took the financial statements at face value
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      You are missing a crucial factor which is that the Post office leveraged prosecution for a much larger 'theft' crime in order to pressure the defendants to plead guilty to a lesser 'bookkeeping' crime along with 'repayment' of missing funds. It was a shakedown.
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      I don't know what the standards are in the UK, but certainly in the USA (and most law is based on English law) you have to "lay a foundation" for any documentary evidence that you introduce at trial. The crux of this is essentially having a witness with knowledge of the document taking the stand and swearing that the document is true and accurate. (to lie about it would technically be perjury) p.s. my accuser received his share of karma very shortly afterwards when his misdeeds caused him to be sued out of existence by several major multinationals he tried to bully. [I can't find much about the guy any longer, but I found his name in Google Books just now in a book titled Business Law where he is used as an example of how not to be]
      - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
        (My below remark is a tangent and isn't meant to judge your experience.) My unqualified understanding is that UK's injurious laws (eg:defamation) are somewhat more favorable for prosecuting malicious behavior, than their US counterparts. The differences can be said to reflect a shift toward prosecuting an offender (UK) vs protecting the innocent (US). I think we can see this whenever US govs tweak law to ease prosecutions. It's non-powerful people who can expect to feel the brunt of it. Stated differently, for each newly enabled prosecution of a well-protected person, an exponentially greater number of vulnerable people will prosecuted. This is far from an absolute principle. It's more a comment about the trends that occur in the absence of ethics - which describes most moments in most justice systems.
  - fractallyte 3y ago
    Can you say more about this, in particular, what happened next? Because it's not really over until there's justice, and the guilty person is punished. I'm hoping that's what happened next!
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      I don't want to go into it, except to say this was the early days of the Internet and he continued to make foolish mistakes to try and get rich at others' loss which ended with him getting personally sued into the ground by some very large corporations, so karma was delivered.
- graemep 3y ago
  A company or an individual can bring a private prosecute. They would have to prove the case against you beyond reasonable doubt though. The real real problem is that the courts (not just in this case) assume computer records are sufficient of guilt without independent verification they are correct. There have been previous HN discussions on the law behind this. The Crown Prosecution Service can take over a private prosecution and then drop it.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    I don't get trivializing forcing someone to have to stand trial. Have you ever been through the process? I don't know how custody works over there, but in the USA generally when dealing with a criminal proceeding you have to either spend the pre-trial and trial period in jail until you are acquitted or you have put up a bond for release which is a substantial amount of money.
    - graemep 3y ago
      I do not think that is the case with private prosecutions because they do not have powers of arrest. We do not usually require bonds for bail here either, and AFAIK most people accused of non-violent offenses do get bail (not checked the numbers so if anyone knows better please correct me). They would have to go to court to defend themselves though. I am pretty sure you can be awarded costs (the prosecution has to pay your legal fees, to the level the judge thinks reasonable) if acquitted, as you can if you win a civil case here.

wonderwonder 3y ago

So a company with money and a good lawyer could really just essentially have you thrown in jail? Seems really not good.

qingcharles 3y ago
Yes, because often they are in control of all the evidence and/or can create evidence. In the 90s, I caught the technical head of a certain very large telecoms firm logging private IRC chats and then blackmailing the users, some of whom were gay and not out. When I made it clear I knew what was going on and that it needed to stop this person went on to fake logs of me hacking into said firm and sent them to the dean of the university where I was studying and there was a serious attempt to have me expelled and talk of criminal charges. I was only saved by the heads of the computing department who vouched for my good character and independently proved that the logs were fake.
- conductr 3y ago
  Were you then able to prosecute him for this fraudulent conspiracy he manufactured? Is there any check and balance, like something seriously discouraging people from doing this nefariously? Is there any responsibility on the judge or jury to demand burden of evidence? As in the postmaster situation, if I were the judge or jury I first and foremost need to be convinced a crime occurred and money is missing. The fact a forensic accountant wasn’t required is still odd to me. I suppose they were glad to call guilty on circumstantial evidence or just took the financial statements at face value
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    You are missing a crucial factor which is that the Post office leveraged prosecution for a much larger 'theft' crime in order to pressure the defendants to plead guilty to a lesser 'bookkeeping' crime along with 'repayment' of missing funds. It was a shakedown.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    I don't know what the standards are in the UK, but certainly in the USA (and most law is based on English law) you have to "lay a foundation" for any documentary evidence that you introduce at trial. The crux of this is essentially having a witness with knowledge of the document taking the stand and swearing that the document is true and accurate. (to lie about it would technically be perjury) p.s. my accuser received his share of karma very shortly afterwards when his misdeeds caused him to be sued out of existence by several major multinationals he tried to bully. [I can't find much about the guy any longer, but I found his name in Google Books just now in a book titled Business Law where he is used as an example of how not to be]
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      (My below remark is a tangent and isn't meant to judge your experience.) My unqualified understanding is that UK's injurious laws (eg:defamation) are somewhat more favorable for prosecuting malicious behavior, than their US counterparts. The differences can be said to reflect a shift toward prosecuting an offender (UK) vs protecting the innocent (US). I think we can see this whenever US govs tweak law to ease prosecutions. It's non-powerful people who can expect to feel the brunt of it. Stated differently, for each newly enabled prosecution of a well-protected person, an exponentially greater number of vulnerable people will prosecuted. This is far from an absolute principle. It's more a comment about the trends that occur in the absence of ethics - which describes most moments in most justice systems.
- fractallyte 3y ago
  Can you say more about this, in particular, what happened next? Because it's not really over until there's justice, and the guilty person is punished. I'm hoping that's what happened next!
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    I don't want to go into it, except to say this was the early days of the Internet and he continued to make foolish mistakes to try and get rich at others' loss which ended with him getting personally sued into the ground by some very large corporations, so karma was delivered.
graemep 3y ago
A company or an individual can bring a private prosecute. They would have to prove the case against you beyond reasonable doubt though. The real real problem is that the courts (not just in this case) assume computer records are sufficient of guilt without independent verification they are correct. There have been previous HN discussions on the law behind this. The Crown Prosecution Service can take over a private prosecution and then drop it.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  I don't get trivializing forcing someone to have to stand trial. Have you ever been through the process? I don't know how custody works over there, but in the USA generally when dealing with a criminal proceeding you have to either spend the pre-trial and trial period in jail until you are acquitted or you have put up a bond for release which is a substantial amount of money.
  - graemep 3y ago
    I do not think that is the case with private prosecutions because they do not have powers of arrest. We do not usually require bonds for bail here either, and AFAIK most people accused of non-violent offenses do get bail (not checked the numbers so if anyone knows better please correct me). They would have to go to court to defend themselves though. I am pretty sure you can be awarded costs (the prosecution has to pay your legal fees, to the level the judge thinks reasonable) if acquitted, as you can if you win a civil case here.