Slashdot Mirror

1707 was the date of the acts of the union of the parliaments. There still remained (and still remains between these two) two legal systems; one for England and Wales, and one for Scotland. There is also a third one for Northern Ireland.

There are three separate prosecution services. One for England and Wales:

The Crown Prosecution Service

One for Scotland:

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

And one for Northern Ireland:

About the PPS

For some differences between England and Scotland: The Differences Between The English And Scottish Law

Northern Ireland is different again. (It is the only part of the United Kingdom where abortion is still illegal.)

As to which of these the US got its laws from, I'll leave that to someone in the US!

I'm not a Scottish lawyer. On the other hand, US law largely comes from the UK, and I can pretty convincingly play a US lawyer, in court.

There are a couple of ways this could play out where people get retrials, or if there is no corroborating evidence, get set free.

One would be for the prosecutor's office to agree to that, perhaps after some media attention. That's not a RIGHT to a retrial, but it could happen.

If there is new evidence, a defendant can move for a new trial. In order for this to be evidence in an unrelated cass, some other case involving the officers would need to come to light, showing a "pattern or practice" of this type of conduct. A single instance of a cop making a false statement in one case probably isn't sufficient evidence that they testified falsely in some other case. If it's shown that that made false statements in two or more cases, that's obviously relevant to their testimony in all cases.

A pardon is possible, but rare, in the UK.

Here's some information that may be relevant:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g...

If there are any UK lawyers reading this, I welcome your feedback.

See https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g...
If you fail to justify why you hit the pedestrian, whether she should have been there or not, you've an excellent chance of prosecution for driving without due care and attention. That's even if you don't qualify for a more serious offence.

In this particular instance, there's an obvious argument that any reasonable driver would have observed the obstruction and avoided it, thus suggesting that the vehicle was not being driven reasonably.

The culpability of the victim may influence subsequent sentencing but wouldn't prevent prosecution.

In the UK we have an offence of wasting Police time, it is minor offence, dealt with by fixed penalty fine. Then our cops down storm houses with guns. What choice are American's going to make?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g...

I may have this wrong but I believe that extradition by the USA has been requested because they won't try him in the UK, and if he were tried in the UK he could not be tried for the same offense in the US

Yes this is right:

Reasons for refusing an extradition request, bars to extradition, are set out in both Parts1 and 2 of the Act, and also within multi and bilateral extradition instruments, and include the following (this list is not exhaustive):

'Double jeopardy'; a person must not be prosecuted or sentenced in respect of an offence that he has already been convicted or acquitted of.

...

From The Crown Prosecution Service extradition fact sheet

The UK Trafficking law has come in for a lot of criticism, it is so widely drawn, that if a prostitute pre-books a taxi to visit a customer, the taxi driver is breaking the law.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_...

Trafficking is only possible when sex work is illegal, if Prostitution was legalised trafficking would be impossible.

There is no place for morality laws in modern society, the only thing that should matter is consent.

In order to be released from detention while his appeals of the Swedish extradition in U.K courts were considered, Assange gave multiple oaths given to UK justice system promising to respect their authority, oaths he broke when he fled to the Ecuadorian Embassy.

No, he didn't. No oath is required when being released on bail, let alone multiple oaths. See the section "Conditions of Bail."

I'm curious that you are able to completely ignore these well known facts.

I'm aware of the facts. They were not germane to my comment, as no oath was sworn under those circumstances either.

Is it just Assange, or do you apply this reasoning for yourself? Does the end of getting your rocks off justify to you the act of not respecting a woman's word when she says no too?

Yeah, fuck you too. That's what you meant. I return it in full measure.

If I intend to punch you in a face, take a swing, but never manage to hit you, did assault actually happened?

If you live in the UK, here's your answer:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_...

TL;DR: yes.

Just like a car pulling away from a curb can't jump in front of moving traffic and complain about getting rear ended. It's your job to make the lane change safely. You might actually have to stop instead.

Of course. On the other hand, unpredictable things happen on roads, particularly in bad weather. A driver who isn't allowing enough clearance as they pass a cyclist for the cycle to be blown a little off course without getting hit just isn't paying enough attention.

Deliberate? I thought I saw a road hazard.

Then you can try that one on with the court. Perhaps the CPS will throw in a charge of driving without due care and attention as well, since if you had to panic brake in response to a road hazard there's a fair chance you weren't driving carefully and at a suitable speed for the conditions.

It is not illegal to slow down. If you are behind me, it's your job to maintain a safe following distance.

True, but it is illegal to drive dangerously or without reasonable consideration for other road users, among other things, and these would be likely consequences of a sudden "brake check" to harass a following cyclist. In fact, braking without good cause is explicitly included in the CPS guidance for bringing the reasonable consideration charge.

The main facility that can be upgraded is getting 'road bikes' off the road. There is no way to safely ride 100psi+ tire bikes on the street with cars. They basically have to swerve around every bit of glass in the bike lane and are rolling, left and right lurching hazards with unsafely long stopping distances.

Or we could completely prohibit cars from using roads frequented by road bikes, or impose a much lower speed limit where access is still required. In some places, we're approaching the point where there will be more cyclists than cars using a given road, after all, and removing the cars would make it safer for other types of bike as well.

In reality, neither absolutist solution is going to get us anywhere until there are reasonable alternatives for any group that gets displaced.

Apparently if they're both drunk the crime is committed by the person that made the initial suggestion.

Of course, your scenario can't possibly be rape. It's legally defined in the UK as

(A) intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis;

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_...

Sorry no - it can be rape, if the woman changes her mind the next day. (C) Feminism.

Minimum of three years if highly provoked, up to lifetime imprisonment if lightly provoked.

So a single user "downloading" a single movie with bittorrent could fall under the 10-year rule. That they don't is your opinion at the moment. It isn't coded into law, or otherwise protected.

Well, that rule doesn't exist yet, so none of us know that.

However, assuming it is a direct extension of what currently attracts a maximum two-year sentence, that is still quite a stretch. The specific circumstances under which copyright becomes a criminal matter are in fact enumerated in statute law. Here they are.

Notice that the recurring theme in almost all of the specifics is something along the lines of knowing or having reason to believe that the copy is infringing. The CPS guidance specifically notes that this means a requirement for criminal intent must exist.

If you do knowingly choose to participate in a system that causes mass-distribution of a specific work and you know that work is infringing someone's copyright, then yes, your actions might be criminal infringement. But even then it appears unlikely based on cases tried so far that a court would hand down a significant custodial sentence on conviction in a case where there was no profit-making involved.

They pass a broad law, stating the goal of stopping screeners and pre-release leaks, but word them to cover everything, so there are no gaps or holes, then apply them to the targeted area, for a year or two, then target anyone using bittorrent.

Given that the maximum penalty for these offences is already two years, and it has been more than a decade since the relevant SI was introduced, can I assume you have a whole stack of citations waiting to show me how dangerous it is to run BitTorrent today as a result? Because I don't see a lot of people in the UK even getting prosecuted for criminal copyright infringement because they ran BT, never mind convicted or sentenced to jail time.

So "lost profit" is the same as robbery.

Taking money that someone else was entitled to by law is pretty much exactly the same as robbery, or at least fraud. And arguing that they weren't entitled to it even though there was demonstrably a customer willing to pay for the work because that customer paid a copycat for their copy instead of the legitimate rightsholder is another stretch.

I can just toss you in the "batshit insane" category and ignore you.

Of course you can. You're free to hold whatever opinion of me you like. But my post contains citations of real laws and official prosector's guidance, and yours contains a slippery slope argument about something that has demonstrably not actually happened in far longer than the timescales you claimed. Your opinion of me won't change those facts.

Crown Prosecution Service sentencing guidelines give 10 years as the starting point for raping a child, 8 for raping a teenager. These are, of course, the starting points for rapists "who do not meet the dangerous offender criteria."

So, copyright infringement is now basically the same as child rape. I wonder if copyright infringers fit the description of a "dangerous offender."

How dare the police use the actual name of the crime that was being accused.

That's the funny thing about words. They can have different meanings! In this case, abstracting electricity means removing/stealing electricity and is actually worded that way in the law books in the UK.

Grapefruit knife?, you don't know the 'arf of it mate...

A butter knife is considered a 'bladed article' under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988..

(see: This page

Don't you have laws against wasting Police Time and/or perverting the cause of justice ?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_...

In the UK anybody can bring a private prosecution - prosecute a criminal charge. It isn't easy, and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) have the right to take over the prosecution, but it can (and is) done.

Where life gets interesting is if the CPS take over the prosecution then drop it - this also happens.

See http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_... for a pretty comprehensive description of how it (should) work.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_...

If the government doesn't act on your behalf you can attempt a private prosecution. It's not easy but it does sometimes happen.

It's never been criminal.

Are you a lawyer in the UK? The Crown Prosecution Service say that deliberate infringement may be criminal.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also lists criminal penalties such as those copied below. It might be worth getting competent legal advice given jail time is a pretty significant punishment.

(2A)A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
    (a)in the course of a business, or
    (b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.

(4A)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—
    (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both;
    (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

Yup - a promise about future behaviour would be good.
Perhaps formal guidance to prosecutors that posting an http link should not generally be seen as 'republishing'

In the UK, there has been controversy around various twitter cases (particularly the bomb joke case).
The end result is that the director of public prosecutions has issued new guidance on how and when to charge people with crimes based on what they say on Twitter.

new guidelines:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a...

relevant section:

---
"... [they are] like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out; those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."

Against that background, prosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:
Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
If so satisfied, prosecutors should go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

Skipping bail is criminal contempt of court in the UK

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63

Penalties are severe:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/contempt_of_court/

An immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to impose upon a person who interferes with the administration of justice, unless the circumstances are wholly exceptional

He would have been (was?) allowed to argue his case that he shouldn't be extradited to Sweden due to the subsequent risk of extradition to the US. I cannot see how he could possibly convince a court that this would have happened and simultaneously show that the same arguments wouldn't have held water when extradition proceedings were in effect.

I can see he might possibly avoid jail in the UK only by surrendering and going to Sweden. But I wouldn't bet that the UK wouldn't want to extradite him back for contempt of court proceedings (or maybe they wouldn't extradite him to Sweden until after he was convicted and sentenced.

Which is exactly what the criminals were hoping you'd say. Rather than say "each received sentences of 15-24 months," it packs more punch to word it ambiguously, and leave people feeling sorry for these punk kids who "got sentenced to up to 6 years in prison! For minor crimes!"

"24 months in a young offender's institution and he will serve half of the sentence" = 12 months in juvie. Poor kid, he'll have to leave his mom's basement for a year.

"20 month sentence, suspended for 2 years and 300 hours unpaid work" = keep out of trouble, and do 300 hours of community service over the next 2 years, and he doesn't go to prison at all.

"30 month sentence, he will serve half" = 15 months in prison. The harshest of the penalties, and still a pretty fucking light sentence.

Rape can get you imprisoned up to and including a life sentence in the UK, Not sure where you get that there's a "maximum of 5 years" for rape. In fact, the most lenient of the "starting points" and "typical ranges" list 5 years at the LOW end of the punishment, before aggravating/mitigating factors are considered.

tl;dr: fuck your idiotic ignorance of the law.

Entering someone's home should be a much more serious crime than, say, walking across the lawn without permission

The intrusion to privacy certainly feels a lot higher in the second case.

If you happened to be interested in the situations in which trespass in itself becomes a criminal activity under English law, there's a one page guide from our prosecutor's office, which explains it pretty well.

In the UK the FBI agent would seem to be guilty of

Misue of Public Office Misusing his authority.
Computer Misuse Act - Unauthorised access to a computer.
Data Protection Act - Disclosure of private data
The Harassment Act - Continuing Harassment after being warned to stop.

The law probably is specific and doesn't take intent or mens rea into consideration outside of X is illegal, is this X for the less obvious ways to approach someone for sex.

It may be that the jury had nothing to say in the matter other then he was behind the messages. WE have a few laws like that in the US. Mostly, they are trivial laws like driving a motor vehicle without valid registration.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s10_causing_or_inciting_a_child_to_engage_in_sexual_activity/

It appears if he didn't say skin on skin, or name any genitalia, he would have gotten community service at the first hearing.

And that the women had lunch with him the next day and didn't press charges until the two of them met, and apparently decided after swapping stories that what had actually happened was rape.

Actually... not immediately complaining is fairly common in rape cases. Myth 10 in the CPS's list of rape myths might be worth a mention here, and some of the others are worth reading.

From their testimony, it seems that one of them wanted to complain but wasn't sure how to, and trying to find out, managed to get in touch with the other, who accompanied her to the police station. I doubt whether either of them thought it was rape, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what he is accused of, and whether that amounts to rape.

Actually, your anecdote only proves that one woman lied about rape.

For more general facts; according to the English CPS (not a wholly unbiased source either), about "2% of all reported rapes are false, which is slightly less than false reporting in all other crimes."

While you're there, you might want to read #10 as well, just for future reference (not that I with to suggest you did commit rape; but that the "staying in bed for about 5 hours" may not be as relevant as it sounds). But yes, you were that 1 in 50 rape accusations that was false. But 1 in 50 isn't "most".

The prosecution isn't supposed to try the case and decide who's guilty.

Absolutely.

What might be worth considering, however, is that the prosecution does have a duty to determine whether bringing a case is in the public interest:

In 1951, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was then Attorney General, made the classic statement on public interest: "[i]t has never been the rule in this country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution". He added that there should be a prosecution: "wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest" (House of Commons Debates, Volume 483, 29 January 1951). This approach has been endorsed by Attorneys General ever since.

From "The Code for Crown Prosecutors," at paragraph 10 of section 4.

The article in the summary provides that:

The judges noted there was no evidence before the Crown Court to suggest any of the followers of the ”tweet“, or anyone else who may have seen it posted on Mr Chambers' timeline, found it to be of a menacing character or, at a time when the threat of terrorism was real, even minimally alarming. (My emphasis)

Following the test set out in the Code, and taking into account the common public interest factors for and against prosecution, I am surprised that this prosecution would pass the public interest test, given a lack of evidence of harm, or of anyone finding it menacing.

Having just read several stories about how people were mugged in the UK and the police didn't care to investigate despite having leads in many cases, I can believe that.

Muggings happen all the time, the police have long since given up any shred of investigation since the punishment is almost non-existent providing no firearms are used or the victim does not need hospital treatment. The last time I as mugged I didn't even bother reporting it, who needs the hassle.

If you want to make sure the police investigate you need to resist and get stabbed or something. If it is just a straight mugging with no violence (just the threat) then the punishment would be a fine or community order anyway even if they investigated:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/handling/

Both of these are joke punishments anyway and since we in the UK do not have a three strikes and your out law then dragging little yobs up in front of the courts or mugging is just a waste of police resources. If we wanted to change this we would need to build a shitload more prisons (and pay the resultant massive increase in taxes) since there are places like Salford (nr Manchester, where I used to live) where the entire populace would serve time before they were out of school.

There's no extradition treaty between the US and UK? Really?

The fact is that:

1) The Pirate Bay does nothing criminal. .

Under British law it is entirely possible that they have committed an offence of Assisting or Encouraging a crime. Everybody knows it is a site designed to help people get free access to material that they would otherwise have to pay for. It's even called The Pirate Bay.

Blocking access to information is censorship in it's pure form. No democracy should allow any form of censorship.

This is bullshit on so many levels. Firstly, if The Pirate Bay is only hosting "a list of hashes .... that are useless on their own" how can it be considered censorship to block access to The Pirate Bay?

Secondly, there is no censorship if an information provider refuses to publish all of their information. Is it censorship for me to refuse to put my credit card number on my web site? No. Furthermore, there is no censorship if an information provider demands money for access to its information. If it were censorship then admission fees to cinemas would be censorship and they are not.

The vast majority of material that the "useless" hashes on The Pirate Bay allow you to access is available through legitimate means elsewhere. This whole thing is not about anything so virtuous as freedom of information, it is about money: whether you have to hand some over to somebody else or not if you want to watch your favourite TV show.

As far as I know they aren't any laws against pretending to be interested in things.

Welcome to the law in England and Wales:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a07

Crown Prosecution Service.

CPS view on mandatory and minimum custodial sentences

There was also a lot of high-profile political publicity around the time that things like the five year penalty for firearm possession came in.

If judges are allowed to override these minimum sentences, I have never seen any reference to it, nor can I find one searching now. I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm not aware of some technicality or procedural detail you are, but you're going to need to cite some clear authority to convince me.

There is a clear defence at S.66 of the legislation in that showing that you were a participant and you (and others) were harmed beyond what you consented to. In principle, the person you shared the images with could be charged with possession and because they would not be a participant, S.66 would not apply; you, however, could not be charged, as you would be a participant.

However, as the offence requires the consent of the DPP in order to charge (which is code for "we've been forced to pass this law by public pressure, but you're out of your mind if you think we're going to use it more than we have to") it's highly unlikely that a scenario where you could produce the participants and have them testify that the acts were consensual would ever reach court, irrespective of whether the images were held by a participant or someone the participant had passed them to.

Of course, if the images portray acts that appear not to be consensual _and_ you can't produce evidence that they are, that's a problem for you, but that isn't the scenario you're outlining. However, "rough sex" wouldn't fall under the legislation at all, and nor would most BDSM. The legislation (op. cit.) and the CPS guidance make interesting reading.

The offence was "Malicious Communications". See http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#p_14

Note also that "One of Lauren’s friends was unfairly blamed for the hate campaign and took a drug overdose." Still think it's wrong to punish this guy? I certainly don't.

You might be interested in this, a speech "Free Expression and the Rule of Law" by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008.

The offence was "Malicious Communications". See http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_offences/#p_14

Note also that "One of Lauren’s friends was unfairly blamed for the hate campaign and took a drug overdose." Still think it's wrong to punish this guy? I certainly don't.

You might be interested in this, a speech "Free Expression and the Rule of Law" by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008.

In an European context, vigilantes are also criminals, as the only organization which is allowed to use force is the state, which is legitimatized by the citizens.

It is easy to ignore your further points when your initial premise is instantly recognisable as utter bullshit. Use of force is not vigilantism unless it is dishing out punishment outside the law. As for the state being the only thing allowed to use force, does a club bouncer/doorman not use force from time to time to keep to defend themselves and others and to keep the peace in the club? Are you under the impression we have state-run clubs?

More detail on the UK situation if you're interested at all in the truth: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

One of the more inspiring aspects of this whole situation is how well some immigrant communities have been stepping up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Hp2pOQYqk

Not that any of this has anything to do with the original post about image analysis.

Sounds more like misconduct in public office.

See http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2010english.pdf (PDF warning), page 10.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/abuse_of_process/

But even so, is 15 years excessive? In the UK, involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/involuntary_manslaughter/ ). And death by dangerous driving carries up to 14 years, only 1 year less than proposed here ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/ ).

Is it so different in the US?

But even so, is 15 years excessive? In the UK, involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/involuntary_manslaughter/ ). And death by dangerous driving carries up to 14 years, only 1 year less than proposed here ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_dangerous_driving/ ).

Is it so different in the US?

The UK government has in fact authorized the IWF to look at child pornography.

If you don't believe me, read for yourself:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/docs/mousexoffences.pdf

I believe that ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have written a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in which they state that IT technicians investigating the matter will not be prosecuted...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/mousexoffences.pdf

The answer lies in the snappily titled "Memorandum of Understanding (PDF) Between Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) concerning Section 46 Sexual Offences Act 2003".

In short, anyone who is listed in advance by their employer, as an employee who performs IT security duties which may lead them to come into contact with child abuse images as part of their job, will not be prosecuted providing their contact with the images is kept to the minimum required to perform their duties.

For example, responding to a user who has received an unsolicited child abuse image and:

* Helping them delete it, or disconnecting their PC for subsequent investigation by the police is good, whereas

* Making a copy to use in their own investigation is bad (investigation of child abuse must be left to the police).

Obviously if you're in the UK, and you're in IT security, and you're likely to need to perform these kinds of duties, it is very important that you ensure your employer already has you listed as being so.

The consequence is that, since most employers don't want to have PCs sitting around switched off waiting for the police to investigate them, the vast majority of child abuse image evidence is deleted on sight (literally).

Computer Shopper are misinformed in their claim that IWF have no licence to contravene the law to view child pornography. In actual fact, there is a published CPS Memorandum of Understanding between the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers - another conveniently non-governmental body that still manages to assume magical quasi-statutory powers).

These bodies are, of course, not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Which no doubt at least partly explains the ever-increasing reliance on such quasi-statutory quangos...

You used the card to pay for a service. You purchased a license. That license is *tangible* - it's also a binding legal contract to pay the license fee and thus using *counterfeit* funds to do so, is fraud. It's no different to paying your TV license with a fake / made-up credit card, or buying a set of crystal glasses with fake Green Shield stamps. It's obtaining goods/services by deception and fraud.

It's called intellectual property for a reason, it's not tangible (though it can be bought and sold like physical property).

A license is not tangible, you can make as many licenses as you like for no extra cost than the media you present the license on.

That aside, a UK jury will never convict someone for buying something cheaply IMO.

Incorrect. In UK law, handling stolen goods has higher sentences (and higher *average* sentences, even after appeal) than actual theft. It is *not* required that the court prove that you *know* they were stolen.

Firstly: handling stolen goods !== buying something cheaply.

Second the CPS ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/theft_acts_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#_Other_Offences_under ) disagrees with you saying (referring to the Theft Act 1968, SS22):

A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of stealing), knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.

In an nutshell, you're wrong.

I'm not defending fences. Nor was I talking about the meaning of the law in my earlier statement, only my perception of the possible outcome of a jury trial - presumably you've a reference for a case where a jury convicted someone for buying something cheaply where that person had no provable belief that it was stolen? (that conviction would contradict the law incidentally).

You can *easily* be convicted for buying a dodgy DVD in a boot sale, or a stolen car stereo... if it came to court, at absolute *minimum* you would be required to return the property, possibly make compensation (i.e. pay Apple for the MP3's), possibly pay court costs, maybe even receive a caution.

Tosh. You got a reference of any sort for someone buying a properly packaged DVD in a car boot sale that was convicted of an offence? Trading Standards rightly go after sellers. There is no way that a buyer could possibly know a DVD is "dodgy" unless it appears "dodgy" - grey imports can be vastly cheaper but are identical products. Tesco got in trouble for grey imports ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-tm/t-policy/t-policy-parallel/t-policy-parallel-caselaw.htm ) but I don't recall any of their customers suffering a conviction for contributory trademark infringement, perhaps you know differently.

If you buy a stolen anything then yes, you're handling stolen goods; again cheap !== stolen.

Your knowledge of whether you knew or not is pretty much irrevelant once it comes into a court... it's what you *should* have known - and a $200 gift card for $40 is almost certainly "obviously in the wrong".

For tangible goods yes. For intangibles then you see these sorts of things all the time. One of my ISPs bundles software "worth £250" with a &pound9 domain name ... should I be contacting the police? No of course not, it doesn't cost them that they're only making it available for sale at that price. Similarly Apple could easily offer $200 of itunes for $40 and still be making a profit.

You get free phones that sell at £200

Citation needed. You're entitled to use reasonable force against an attacker in situations such as this. If for instance an intruder is attacking a family member, and you bash him over the head with some heavy blunt instrument, you're unlikely to be charged even if he later dies of the injury you dealt him.

If on the other hand an intruder has finished attacking a family member, and he leaves, and you pursue him down the street and beat him to death in revenge, you'll rightly be up on murder charges. Shooting intruders in the back while they're fleeing is also frowned upon, as is the practice of filling your house and grounds with booby-traps in expectation of intruders.

A great many specific weapons are illegal in the UK, but the principle of self-defence remains very much in force.