Read PDF Three Strikes: Sometimes there is no going back

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Three Strikes: Sometimes there is no going back file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Three Strikes: Sometimes there is no going back book. Happy reading Three Strikes: Sometimes there is no going back Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Three Strikes: Sometimes there is no going back at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Three Strikes: Sometimes there is no going back Pocket Guide.
In the United States, habitual offender laws were first implemented on March 7, and are However, there is a more recent history of mandatory prison sentences for a mandatory life sentence without parole for three or more felony convictions for . Prosecutors have also sometimes evaded the three-strikes laws by.
Table of contents

He was convicted of aggravated burglary and appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the relevant time was the commission of the act which completed the offence in this case the theft.

JPI's work

Had D been charged with burglary based on 9 1 a then that offence would have been complete once he had entered and so subsequently arming himself with a knife would not in that case have made him guilty of aggravated burglary. For the offence of driving or allowing to be carried in a conveyance knowing it to have been taken without consent see below. The conveyance must be moved in some way, however small the distance.

R v Bogacki 57 Cr App R But it is not necessary that the defendant should actually drive or sit in or on the conveyance or use it as a conveyance in the act of taking it: R v Pearce [] Crim LR D was guilty of TWOC when he took a rubber dinghy which he loaded onto a trailer and towed away. The emphasis of section 12 5 was on artefacts rather than animals. In the taking of the conveyance it is not necessary that the defendant or anyone else be conveyed in it.

See Pearce above. However, the purpose of taking it must be to use it as a conveyance so if it is not used as a conveyance during the taking then it must be established that the purpose of taking it was to use later as a conveyance as in the case of the dinghy taken in Pearce.

Account Options

Where there is apparent consent to the taking which was obtained by fraud, the position in law is that this will not necessarily constitute TWOC as there is no rule that fraud vitiates consent Whittaker v Campbell Cr App R Where an owner is persuaded by some sort of fraud to agree to somebody taking their vehicle prosecutors should charge one of the offences under the Fraud Act Where permission has been given by the owner for some limited purpose, keeping the car after completing that purpose and continuing to drive it will be an offence of TWOC if there is no belief that the owner would consent to the continued use see R v Phipps 54 Cr App R , a case decided under the previous legislation.

This will also apply to a hired vehicle which is not returned at the end of the hire period and which is still being driven. Section 12 1 also provides that anyone who knowingly drives or allows themselves to be carried in a conveyance taken without consent is guilty of an offence. Simply sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle knowing it to have been taken without consent, even with the intention of being carried, will not constitute the offence until the vehicle moves off. The defendant must know that the conveyance has been taken without the consent of the owner.

Belief falling short of knowledge will not be sufficient. However, even where a defendant does know that the conveyance has been taken without consent, section 12 6 provides a specific statutory defence for all offences under section 12 including taking a pedal cycle :. Offences under section 12 are summary only and cannot be charged as an attempt. Where an attempt is made to take a motor vehicle or trailer, the appropriate offence would normally be vehicle interference. Offences under section 12 1 are now summary only.

The maximum penalty is six months imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. Offences under section 12 5 pedal cycles have always been summary only and are non-imprisonable carrying a maximum of a level 3 fine. The offence is endorsable when committed in respect of a motor vehicle and carries a discretionary disqualification. In a Crown Court trial for theft a jury may return a verdict of guilty to TWOC if they are not satisfied that the theft is proved section 12 4.

Proceedings for TWOC may be commenced. Section 12 4A specifies that this does not affect the right of a jury to convict of TWOC as an alternative verdict to theft under section 12 4. Where a defendant is sent for trial on indictable offences, any linked case of taking without consent may be added to the indictment under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act The count can be added whether the defendant was charged with the offence and sent for trial on it as a linked offence or not. The defendant will be guilty of this offence even if they were not driving at the time of the aggravating circumstance.


  • Serving Life for Stealing a Sandwich.
  • In Front of His Eyes IV!
  • BreBooks: Labor Day for Anna (Timber Falls Book 13).
  • The Lost Ten Tribes, and 1882.
  • Do ‘three strikes’ laws work?.
  • Contribute.

The prosecution need not even prove that the defendant was anywhere near the vehicle at the time of the aggravating circumstance. It is open to the defendant to raise a defence under section 12 3 that. This is not defined in the Act. In R v Taylor [] 1 WLR the Supreme Court considered the question of whether it was necessary to establish some element of fault in the circumstances of b to d above.

Where the dangerous driving element is the aggravation relied upon a above then fault is an explicit element of the offence. In the case of b and c there had to be something which was wrong with the driving and which was linked to the cause of the accident. In the case of damage to the vehicle itself see d above there is no need for it to have been caused by driving and it may be that the courts will interpret liability more strictly in those cases. In Dawes v DPP [] 1 Cr App R 65 the Divisional Court were asked to find that D was not guilty of aggravated TWOC because it was argued he had been unlawfully locked inside the car so was entitled to cause damage to the extent that it was necessary to enable him to escape.

Following the principle in R v Courtie [] AC aggravated TWOC resulting in death should be considered a separate offence and the death should be pleaded on the face of the indictment or charge. However, where there is evidence of dangerous driving and that the defendant was the driver, prosecutors should charge an offence of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act If the defendant is sent to the Crown Court then any linked charge of TWOC aggravated by low-value damage can still be included on the indictment under section 40 3 d of the Criminal Justice Act Offences under section 12A where the conveyance involved was a motor vehicle are endorsable with 3 — 11 points and carry an obligatory period of disqualification for a minimum of 12 months under Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act The court may, at its discretion, also impose a period of further disqualification until the defendant has passed an extended driving test.

Where the defendant can be proved to be the driver and there is evidence of dangerous driving it may be more appropriate to proceed on a specific charge under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act , because disqualification until the extended test is passed is mandatory for that offence section 36 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act Section 13 of the Act creates the offence of dishonestly using electricity without authority or dishonestly causing electricity to be wasted or diverted. It is not necessary that the defendant should have tampered with the meter. Provided that they have in fact used the electricity, that they were not authorised to do so and that in doing so they were being dishonest by the standards of ordinary people, the offence will be made out: R v McCreadie 96 Cr App R The offence is triable either-way.

The offence of blackmail is committed when a person with a view to gain for themselves or another or intending to cause loss to another makes an unwarranted demand with menaces.


  • drakon vperedi.
  • Arguing Three Strikes;
  • Arguing Three Strikes - The New York Times.
  • Three Strikes: How to Show Interest Without Looking Like a Stalker;
  • Opinion on Three Strikes Law!
  • Accessibility controls.
  • The Jade Venus (The Kent Murdock Mysteries)!

Section 21 of the Act Dishonesty is not an element of the offence. The gain or loss may be temporary and include gain by keeping what one already has and loss by not getting what one might otherwise get. A demand will be unwarranted unless the person making it believes both that they have reasonable grounds for making it and that the menaces used are a proper means of reinforcing it. It is for the defence to raise this as an issue but once raised, the onus is on the prosecution to disprove it.

The test is subjective: what the defendant in fact believed, reasonably or not. A demand may be unwarranted notwithstanding the fact that the person making it has a legal right to whatever it is that they are demanding, as even where the demand is thought to be reasonable the reinforcement must also be believed to be proper. Therefore, a charge of blackmail might succeed when a charge of robbery would fail because the defendant had or believed they had a claim of right to whatever they demanded and so was not acting dishonestly.

'3 strikes' and Mississippi taxpayers out $40 million a year

The fact that the action threatened may be legal or even morally desirable does not prevent it from being unwarranted. For instance, a demand for money accompanied by a threat to reveal to the victim's employer that they have been stealing from the company will almost certainly be blackmail, although most would consider that telling the employer is the right thing to do. It is the use of the threat to gain money which will usually lead to it being considered unwarranted. However, if what is threatened is itself illegal it will almost inevitably follow that the threat cannot be a "proper" way of reinforcing the demand because it will not normally be believable that anyone could honestly have thought that doing an illegal act would be a proper way of reinforcing their demand.

This is not defined in the Act but it is a word in ordinary use and should be left to the jury. It can be phrased as a request or even as an offer such as an offer of "protection" to a business.

Account Options

It may be simply the defendant's demeanour. If the effect is to subject the victim to menacing pressure then that element of the offence will be made out. A demand need not be actually communicated to the victim in order to be "made" for the purposes of section The demand is made when it is addressed to the victim whether in writing or spoken words whether the victim receives it or not.

Where a demand is made in England or Wales then the courts will always have jurisdiction since the offence will have been made within the jurisdiction, irrespective of where the demand was sent. They concluded, on a purposive interpretation of the statute, that parliament had intended to confer jurisdiction in these circumstances.

This is not defined by the Act but it is an ordinary English word which the jury can generally decide on as a question of fact. Exceptionally the jury may need some guidance where:. In both cases the jury should be directed that such threats are capable of amounting to menaces for the purposes of section The offence is created by section 22 of the act.

It can be committed in various ways:. In all cases, the handling must be done otherwise than in the course of theft or all thieves would also be handlers.

The goods must be proved to be stolen and the defendant must be proved to have known or believed the goods were stolen at the time they committed the actus reus. Handling is a single offence which can be committed in a number of different ways as set out above. This was confirmed as part of the ratio decidendi in Griffiths v Freeman [] 1 W. This should be followed in preference to the obiter dictum of Lord Bridge of Harwich taking the contrary view in R v Bloxham [] 1 AC However, as a matter of good practice the particulars of the charge or indictment should specify which of the various forms the handling took.

This must be interpreted in accordance with Ivey v Genting Casinos. See Dishonestly " above in this chapter, under "Theft. The scope of what is included in "stolen goods" is set out in sections 24 and 24A 8 of the Act. Goods stolen outside the jurisdiction are included in some circumstances usually where the stealing was an offence in the jurisdiction where it took place. The proceeds of stolen goods which have been realised by the thief or handler are themselves stolen goods but only to the extent that they have been in the hands of the thief or handler.

The effect of this is that whilst a thief or handler cannot wash away the "taint" of goods being stolen by simply selling on the goods, because proceeds they raise from the sale will still be "stolen", the "taint" will not transfer any proceeds obtained by the innocent purchaser if they sell the goods.

Theft Act Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

So, where, for example, a mobile phone is stolen and disposed of to a handler, the money received by the thief will be stolen goods. The phone itself will remain stolen goods and if the handler then sells it to an innocent purchaser, the money obtained by the handler will also be stolen goods. But if the innocent purchaser sells the phone on, the money received by them will not be stolen goods because it has never represented the proceeds of stolen goods in the hands of either the thief or the handler.

Goods obtained through blackmail or fraud are also considered stolen goods for the purposes of the offence of handling as is cash dishonestly withdrawn from an account which has received a wrongful credit. The goods in question must be proved to have been in fact stolen at the time of the handling. In the absence of direct evidence on the point an inference can be drawn based on the circumstances: R v Fuschillo 27 Cr App R Goods cease to be stolen when they are restored to the owner or otherwise taken into lawful possession section 24 3.

If there is any doubt about whether the goods have ceased to be stolen before they are received but there is evidence that the receiver intended to handle stolen goods then it will usually be possible to prove either arranging to receive stolen goods, contrary to section 22 of the Act or attempting to handle stolen goods, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act The defendant must either have known or had a correct belief that the goods were stolen at the time of handling them. If the handling is by receiving then a defendant who realises that goods are stolen only after they have taken possession of them will not be guilty of handling them.

However, if the defendant decides to retain the goods after finding out that they are stolen, they may be guilty of theft or an offence under section of POCA The defendant must either know for instance because they have been told by the thief or someone else with first-hand knowledge or actually believe that the goods were stolen. Suspicion, even when the defendant deliberately shuts their eyes to the circumstances, is not enough.

R v Moys 79 Cr App R Section 27 3 of the Act provides that for the purposes of proving that a defendant knew or believed goods were stolen, evidence may be admitted that:. The reasoning behind allowing this evidence into the trial is that a person who has previously had dealings with stolen goods even if innocently, as in a above will normally have a greater awareness of what to look out for in order to avoid them.

The fact that in spite of having come into contact with them previously the defendant claims to have failed to recognise what they were on coming into contact with them again can be used in weighing up the credibility of that claim. The evidence under section 27 3 is solely for the purposes of proving the defendant's state of mind.

It cannot be used to prove that the goods are actually stolen and the prosecution must first adduce evidence of that fact before they can call any evidence under a and b above.