4 ms·

I'm not sure what perspective you're writing from, but I think many people in the legal profession would disagree with you. Firstly, the UK has several distint

by objclxt 14y ago

I'm not sure what perspective you're writing from, but I think many people in the legal profession would disagree with you. Firstly, the UK has several distint judicial systems. I suspect in this case you're referring to the English legal system (Scotland having its own, entirely separate, process). There's then the civil and criminal courts. The former are held in high regard around the world - the English courts are often the venue of choice for impartially resolving international disputes and litigation. You can argue it is a discrepancy that private prosecutions are still allowed - at some point in the past they did actually serve a purpose - however, under the English system it is up to the government, rather than the judiciary, to correct that. I am not pretending it is a perfect system: far from it. I think in this case the judge behaved inappropriately, and the logic being used to force a copyright claim (which is a tort, i.e, purely a civil matter) into a criminal one (conspiracy to defraud) is potentially very spurious. However, this is also why an appeals system exists. What I'm basically trying to say in a round-about way is that I don't think the English courts are 'spectacularly weak' - they have their problems, but what judicial system doesn't?

tptacek 14y ago
The UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?
- waqf 14y ago
  Yes, that's right. For example the RSPCA, a private charity, brings its own prosecutions against alleged animal abusers, something that the CPS (government prosecutors) might not want to spend time and money on.
- _delirium 14y ago
  Well, only England & Wales (not Scotland), but yeah. Private prosecution used to be the norm, and was never abolished, just supplemented by Crown prosecution. The Crown can take over any private prosecution, either to prosecute it themselves, or to drop the charges, and now handles most cases. But sometimes the Crown doesn't care to intervene either way, and the case can go forward on the private party's dime. I can't seem to find any statistics on how common convictions are in those cases, e.g. if it's mostly private parties wasting their time on no-hope prosecutions, or if there are actually a substantial number of people convicted in cases that the Crown doesn't consider worth prosecuting.
- arethuza 14y ago
  It seems odd to me that in other countries individuals can't bring criminal cases - leaving everything to the "official" prosecutor (e.g the Procurator Fiscal here in Scotland).
  - tptacek 14y ago
    How, exactly, do pleas and charge reductions work when the person conducting the prosecution has none of the incentives for leniency that the state does?
    - arethuza 14y ago
      Good question - it is perhaps worth noticing that private prosecutions are rather rare and typically only happen when the "official" prosecutor appears to have made an error of judgement and appear to be taken by victims (or their families) as an act of desperation. For example: http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/155/When_worlds_collide.html http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/155/When_worlds_collide... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence What happens in other countries if the "official" prosecutor chooses not to prosecute a crime? NB I'm not intending to imply that I think the various approaches to private prosecutions that we have in the UK are a good thing - this case brought by FACT does look a bit worrying.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        In the US, if the prosecutor with authority over the offense chooses not to prosecute, and no other venue exists to prosecute the offense (for instance, there's no federal angle to the offense that would get the FBI involved), that's where the matter ends. And that's exactly how things do end, all the time. This is mostly a good thing. If anything, we need more discretion over charging cases.
    - vacri 14y ago
      There are similar incentives - a 'not guilty' plea lengthens the case, which increases the cost to the prosecutor. I also understand that the if the prosecution loses, they pay the defendant's court costs, and a guilty plea means they win with no risk of that payout.

by objclxt 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

The UK has a criminal copyright infringement statute; like the US, infringement becomes criminal when you do it for money. It is news to me --- and, wow --- that private entities can prosecute crimes in the UK. Am I reading that right?

waqf 14y ago
Yes, that's right. For example the RSPCA, a private charity, brings its own prosecutions against alleged animal abusers, something that the CPS (government prosecutors) might not want to spend time and money on.
_delirium 14y ago
Well, only England & Wales (not Scotland), but yeah. Private prosecution used to be the norm, and was never abolished, just supplemented by Crown prosecution. The Crown can take over any private prosecution, either to prosecute it themselves, or to drop the charges, and now handles most cases. But sometimes the Crown doesn't care to intervene either way, and the case can go forward on the private party's dime. I can't seem to find any statistics on how common convictions are in those cases, e.g. if it's mostly private parties wasting their time on no-hope prosecutions, or if there are actually a substantial number of people convicted in cases that the Crown doesn't consider worth prosecuting.
arethuza 14y ago
It seems odd to me that in other countries individuals can't bring criminal cases - leaving everything to the "official" prosecutor (e.g the Procurator Fiscal here in Scotland).
- tptacek 14y ago
  How, exactly, do pleas and charge reductions work when the person conducting the prosecution has none of the incentives for leniency that the state does?
  - arethuza 14y ago
    Good question - it is perhaps worth noticing that private prosecutions are rather rare and typically only happen when the "official" prosecutor appears to have made an error of judgement and appear to be taken by victims (or their families) as an act of desperation. For example: http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/155/When_worlds_collide.html http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/155/When_worlds_collide... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence What happens in other countries if the "official" prosecutor chooses not to prosecute a crime? NB I'm not intending to imply that I think the various approaches to private prosecutions that we have in the UK are a good thing - this case brought by FACT does look a bit worrying.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      In the US, if the prosecutor with authority over the offense chooses not to prosecute, and no other venue exists to prosecute the offense (for instance, there's no federal angle to the offense that would get the FBI involved), that's where the matter ends. And that's exactly how things do end, all the time. This is mostly a good thing. If anything, we need more discretion over charging cases.
  - vacri 14y ago
    There are similar incentives - a 'not guilty' plea lengthens the case, which increases the cost to the prosecutor. I also understand that the if the prosecution loses, they pay the defendant's court costs, and a guilty plea means they win with no risk of that payout.