What are some ways an abuser could use spoofing technology? How can I prove spoofing in court? What resources exist if I am a victim of spoofing? Is electronic surveillance illegal? What is spyware? Is impersonation illegal? What are some ways that an abuser might use technology for impersonation? What laws protect me from impersonation?
How can an abuser misuse GPS technology? What laws can protect me from GPS monitoring? What can I do to stay safe or prevent the mis-use of a GPS-enabled device? Computer Crimes What are computer crimes? How can an abuser commit a computer crime as a way to abuse me? What are some examples of computer crimes? What types of laws protect me from computer crimes?
Responding to Technology Misuse: Civil and Criminal Options What are the basic differences in criminal and civil court cases? What can I accomplish through civil court? What can I accomplish through criminal court? How can I stay safe if I am the victim of technology abuse?
What resources are available for advocates or survivors? How is digital evidence different from other types of evidence? What should I do to prepare for my case if it involves digital evidence? Will I be able to get my digital evidence into the court record during my hearing?
Why is documenting evidence important in cases involving technology abuse? When the offender is under the age of 17, the disposition of the matter shall be governed exclusively by the state Children's Code.
A draft version of this Louisiana legislation will be in the Suggested State Legislation volume. The model Cyberbullying Prevention Law by the Anti-Defamation League requires school districts to adopt an anti-bullying policy in their schools that is comprehensive, practical and effective.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, the policy gives school administrators and staff the resources they need to combat and respond to bullying and cyberbullying. A strong and comprehensive anti-bullying statute will:. According to Nicole Julal, Legislative Counsel to The Uniform Law Commission, while most states have an offense of criminal impersonation, four have enacted laws which directly criminalize the offense of cyber impersonation -- California, New York, Hawaii and Texas.
Massachusetts criminalizes such conduct if it is within the context of school bullying. Section Impersonates another by communication by internet website or electronic means with the intent to obtain a benefit or injure or defraud another, or by such communication pretends to be a public servant in order to induce another to submit to such authority or act in reliance on such pretense.
Latest Insider. Check out the latest Insider stories here. More from the IDG Network. FBI: Investment scams, Blackhole exploit kit lead cybercrime wave. Join the Network World communities on Facebook and LinkedIn to comment on topics that are top of mind. You need to prove that the person harboured had escaped from prison or detention in a remand centre or Young Offenders' Institution and such provisions are construed strictly: see Nicoll v Catron Cr App R ; Moss 82 Cr App R The offence, therefore, cannot be committed in respect of a person who escapes from custody whilst in transit to or from prison, or from court etc.
In serious cases, however, an offence of Perverting the Course of Justice might be considered. When considering the public interest in prosecuting a person accused of harbouring, you should always bear in mind:. Often, the public interest will not demand proceedings against a wife or parent who has been put under pressure to harbour a husband or son, especially if the offence for which the prisoner was incarcerated is not serious.
It is an offence triable only on indictment unless the principal offence is an either way offence, in which case the offence of assisting a principal offender is also triable either way.
The maximum sentence for the offence varies from three to ten years' imprisonment, depending on the punishment applicable to the principal offence: s. Consent may be granted after charge but must be before committal proceedings indictable offences or mode of trial either way offences. It is not an offence to attempt to commit an offence under section 4. There may be an overlap between the offence of assisting an offender and obstructing a constable, wasting police time, concealing arrestable offences s.
The courts have made it clear that assisting an offender is a serious offence and, if the statutory offence of assisting an offender can be charged, it should normally be preferred over common law offences. Assisting an offender is sometimes not an easy offence to prove since it requires proof that the principle committed an arrestable offence and that the accused knew or believed this.
In the absence of such proof, other public justice offences, such as obstruction or perverting the course of justice, can provide alternative charges. Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence of preventing the burial of a body indictable only, unlimited imprisonment is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.
The offences of obstructing a coroner and preventing the burial of a body may arise for example, when a person decides to conceal the innocent and unexpected death of a relative or friend or prevent his burial.
Such cases inevitably raise sensitive public interest factors which must be carefully considered. When the evidence supports a charge of involuntary manslaughter, it may be necessary to add a charge of obstructing a coroner or preventing a burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.
Obstructing a coroner may also amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as obstructing a coroner, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice.
The Code for Crown Prosecutors is a public document, issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions that sets out the general principles Crown Prosecutors should follow when they make decisions on cases. This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. It is regularly updated to reflect changes in law and practice.
Help us to improve our website; let us know what you think by taking our short survey. Contrast Switch to colour theme Switch to blue theme Switch to high visibility theme Switch to soft theme.
Search for Search for. Top menu Careers Contact. Wasting police time requires the consent of the DPP. Charging Standard - Purpose The charging standard below, provides guidance concerning the charge which should be preferred if the criteria set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors are met. Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences The following factors will be relevant to all public justice offences when assessing the relative seriousness of the conduct and which offence, when there is an option, should be charged.
Perverting the Course of Justice The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused: does an act or series of acts; which has or have a tendency to pervert; and which is or are intended to pervert; the course of public justice.
Before preferring such a charge, consideration must be given to the possible alternatives referred to in this Charging Standard and, where appropriate, any of the following offences: corruption: Prevention of Corruption Act and Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act ; agreeing to indemnify a surety: s. If the seriousness of the offence can properly be reflected in any other charge, which would provide the court with adequate sentencing powers, and permit a proper presentation of the case as a whole, that other charge should be used unless: the facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would be inadequate; or it would ensure the better presentation of the case as a whole; for example, a co-defendant has been charged with an indictable offence and the statutory offence is summary only.
In deciding whether or not it is in the public interest to proceed, consideration should be given to: The nature of the proceedings with which the defendant was trying to interfere; The consequences, or possible consequences, of the interference. For example, by giving a false name so as to avoid a mandatory disqualification or a 'totting' disqualification: giving false details which might significantly influence the sentence passed; giving details which may result in a caution instead of prosecution ; concerted attempts to interfere with jurors; attacks on counsel or the judge; or conduct designed to cause the proceedings to be completely abandoned ; a concerted attempt has been made to influence significant witnesses, particularly if accompanied by serious violence; the sentencing powers of the court for an alternative offence would be inadequate.
Handling Arrangements Cases alleging perverting the course of justice arising from a false or a retracted complaint of rape or other sexual offence or domestic abuse should be handled by a prosecutor with the appropriate levels of skill and experience in light of the complex and sensitive issues that are likely to fall to be considered.
Misrepresentation as to Identity The most common example is when a suspect provides false details to an officer - whether it involves giving a false name, date of birth, address or a combination of the three.
In the absence of any other aggravating features, it is unlikely that it will be appropriate to charge perverting the course of justice in the following circumstances: Giving a false name in circumstances in which no-one else is exposed to the risk of prosecution. The attempt to avoid prosecution is inevitably doomed to failure. The misrepresentation is discovered before a significant period of time has elapsed.
Perjury By section 1 1 of the Perjury Act , perjury is committed when: a lawfully sworn witness or interpreter in judicial proceedings wilfully makes a false statement which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and which is material in the proceedings. Perjury by a Prosecution Witness Proceedings against a prosecution witness for perjury will depend on an assessment of the material effect of the perjured evidence.
Perjury by a Defendant If a defendant is convicted despite giving perjured evidence, the decision to prosecute must take note of the sentence imposed for the original offence. Perjury by a Defence Witness The decision to prosecute a defence witness for perjury partly depends on whether the defendant in the earlier trial was convicted: If the defendant was convicted, and there is no clear evidence of collusion, a prosecution would not usually be appropriate; If the defendant was convicted and there is clear evidence of collusion between the witness and defendant to give perjured evidence, a prosecution may be appropriate.
Where it is in the public interest to prosecute for perjury others involved in fabricating false evidence with the defendant, then the defendant should also be prosecuted, except in exceptional circumstances; In the event of an acquittal, in the absence of clear evidence of collusion, the evidential test for a prosecution is unlikely to be met.
Where there is clear evidence of collusion, and where the perjured evidence is sufficiently material to the case, then careful consideration should be given to a prosecution. Offences Akin to Perjury There are a number of offences akin to perjury in the perjury act which, though not detailed in this charging standard, should be considered, including: false statements on oath made otherwise than in a judicial proceeding: s.
Offences Concerning Witnesses and Jurors Intimidating or Harming Witnesses and Others - Criminal Proceedings Attempts are often made to threaten or persuade a witness not to give evidence, or to give evidence in a way that is favourable to the defendant.
Knowing or believing the person harmed or threatened to be harmed the victim , or some other person, has assisted in an investigation into an offence, or has given evidence or particular evidence in proceedings for an offence or has acted as a juror, or concurred in a particular verdict in proceedings for an offence, and the act is done or the threat is made because of that knowledge or belief.
Examples of post-trial conduct appropriate for a s. Application to Set Aside a 'Tainted' Acquittal Where a person who has been acquitted of an offence is later convicted of an administration of justice offence involving interference with, or intimidation of a juror or a witness or potential witness in the proceedings which led to their acquittal, application may be made to the High Court to have the acquittal set aside as "tainted" - see Section 54 and 55 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act Interfering or Harming Witnesses - Civil Proceedings Two new offences were created by Sections 39 and 40 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act Section 39 creates the offence of intimidating a witness in the course of civil proceedings.
An offence is only committed where an act of intimidation occurs after proceedings have been commenced; Section 40 creates the offence of harming a witness in civil proceedings. For this offence the act must be committed after the commencement of proceedings and within a year of proceedings being finally concluded. Section 39 - Intimidation A person commits an offence contrary to Section 39 when doing to another person: An act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate another person the victim Knowing or believing that the victim is, or may be a witness in any relevant proceedings, and Intending by his act to cause the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with, and The act is done after the commencement of those proceedings.
It is immaterial: Whether the act is done in the presence of the victim. Whether the act is done to the victim himself or to another. Whether or not the intention to cause the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with is the predominant intention of the person doing the act.
Section 40 - Harming A person commits an offence contrary to Section 40 when doing to another person: An act which harms and is intended to harm another person, or Intending to cause another person to fear harm, he threatens to do an act, which would harm that other person.
For both Section 39 and 40, relevant proceedings are defined as proceedings in or before: The Court of Appeal; The High Court; The Crown Court; Any County or magistrates' court, which are not proceedings for an offence and which were commenced on or after the date these provisions came into force 1st August Interference with Jurors Interference with jurors can be treated as acts intended to pervert the course of justice.
0コメント