False documents

[melonfool]

Mel's link indicates that showing someone committed an offence under the Identity Documents Act 2010 does not require proof of any intent.

That's the Coalition's Act to scrap Identity Cards. Were some in the Civil Service peeved at the scrapping of their Identity Card control mechanism, that they smuggled in some strict liability stuff in its repeal?

It does have the repeal in it - but yes, it has a lot of other stuff as well, if you click on the link you can read it - as it's recent it's easy reading (unlike the Forgeries Act which gave me a migraine!).

Whether Civil Servants were peeved I doubt we will ever know.

Mel

[Lootman]

Where the 'degrees' come in is in the sentencing guidelines.

From the judge's point of view, yes.

But I was talking more about the charges. So the mere possession of a forged document would be a different and lighter charge than the deliberate and malicious use of a forged document to defraud, steal or otherwise derive an illegal benefit.

So yes, the sentence would be harsher for the latter, but only because the charges are harsher. Just like the charge for possession of a drug for personal use is lighter than the charge of making, importing or dealing drugs. Or how carrying an unlicensed firearm is not as bad as discharging one with intent.

And before any of that happens a jury has to be convinced which, having sat on a couple myself, isn't a trivial obstacle, particularly in cases where the harm done isn't readily apparent and the law appears unduly arbitrary and technical in nature.

[Gengulphus]

If all the "crime" is is possession of a library card where you have changed the expiry date, ...

Not a crime, at least under the Identity Documents Act 2010 (*) - only a few types of document are "identity documents" for the purposes of that Act (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/40/section/7/enacted), and they don't include library cards!

(*) I doubt it is under any other Act either - but I'm certainly not going to check them all to make certain!

But it's still a matter of degree. A fake document that is never used, which is what the OP clearly stated, is a minor transgression and unlikely in practice to be prosecuted. Nor my kids' fake ID's for pubs. ...

On the assumption that the "fake document" and your kids' fake IDs aren't of the few types in the link (essentially fake passports, driving licenses and immigration documents), it's not even a minor transgression under the Identity Documents Act 2010 and so won't be prosecuted under that Act!

If they are of those types:

... A fake passport used to illegally enter the UK or open a bank account for nefarious purposes would be orders of magnitude more serious.

And if it's a fake passport (or fake driving license, etc) used to obtain a drink in a pub? Having an "intent to commit a crime" condition in the Identity Documents Act 2010 wouldn't save you; having an "intent to commit a serious crime" condition would only save you if you could convince a jury that the idea that you only intended to use it for minor crimes constituted "reasonable doubt". In the absence of a "reasonable excuse", I think that's a rather forlorn hope - i.e. that the presence or absence of an "intent" condition would make little difference.

But whether I'm right or wrong about that, basically the legislators have decided that it's more important to discourage the possession of fake passports, etc, as strongly as possible than it is to protect those who carry such fake documents, but only for sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut purposes like obtaining illicit drinks, from their own idiocy. Pretty much the same way that they've decided that it's more important to discourage the possession of guns as strongly as possible than it is to protect those who carry guns, but only unloaded guns that they never even threaten anyone with, from their own idiocy... Not saying they're necessarily right about either of those decisions, but the two do seem to me to be on a par.

Gengulphus

[Clitheroekid]

And before any of that happens a jury has to be convinced which, having sat on a couple myself, isn't a trivial obstacle, particularly in cases where the harm done isn't readily apparent and the law appears unduly arbitrary and technical in nature.

Not so. The offences under section 6 (a person without reasonable excuse having in their possession a false identity document) is an either-way offence, which means that it can be tried in the magistrates' court.

Although the defendant can ask for it to be tried by jury in the Crown Court he can obviously only do so if he pleads not guilty, and I suspect that the vast majority of people in this situation would plead guilty just to get it over with.

And even if they wanted to plead not guilty most people would opt for a simpler and quicker trial in the magistrates' court, not realising that the conviction rate is twice as high as the Crown Court (60% as against around 30%).

Also for many people the sheer expense of a Crown Court trial would persuade them to have it heard in the magistrates' court, particularly as it's now extremely unlikely the costs could be recovered even on an acquittal.

[Lootman]

Although the defendant can ask for it to be tried by jury in the Crown Court he can obviously only do so if he pleads not guilty, and I suspect that the vast majority of people in this situation would plead guilty just to get it over with.

And even if they wanted to plead not guilty most people would opt for a simpler and quicker trial in the magistrates' court, not realising that the conviction rate is twice as high as the Crown Court (60% as against around 30%).

That statistic about the Crown Court convicting at only half the rate of Magistrates' Court is interesting. I've been through two criminal cases and, both times, the charges were such that a jury trial was an option. My lawyer advised me that it was better to take my chances with a jury.

His reasoning was that most magistrates and judges are conservative, establishment figures who are unlikely to feel much sympathy with a defendant. Whereas a jury of my peers is more likely to deliver a "not guilty" verdict, being influenced by a broader set of factors especially if they identify with the defendant and/or don't much like the law under which the charges were filed.

By the same token, the prosecutors usually want a Magistrates' or bench trial, feeling more confident that they will prevail there.

And although it costs more, obviously, my experience was that it was worthwhile. In one case the charges were dropped the day before the trial. In the other case, a deal was made which dropped the more serious charge in return for a guilty plea to a lessor charge that was later expunged. So just time served and, later, no record.

But you're right, I bet most people just take the easy route and end up getting railroaded by the system.

[melonfool]

I read a report once that said that in triable-either-way cases the majority of people opted for Crown Court, believing juries to be kinder.

In reality, far fewer people are found guilty by magistrates than by juries.

Of course, there are a lot of factors, such as why someone chose the CC rather than the magistrates (could be all sorts of reasons, not just about juries being lenient, could be the type of case, could be lawyer bias in some sorts of cases etc).

"His reasoning was that most magistrates and judges are conservative, establishment figures who are unlikely to feel much sympathy with a defendant. "

An odd idea - magistrates are members of the general public who want to do a public duty. As such, many are very liberal-minded in fact. Of course you do get the occasional retired brigadier, but mainly from what I can see it is civil servants, teachers, lawyers.

"it was worthwhile. In one case the charges were dropped the day before the trial."

I can't see there can be any link between that and the type of trial. If there isn't enough evidence for one, there isn't enough evidence for either.

"although it costs more"

I think your lawyer did a number on you.

Mel

[Gengulphus]

And even if they wanted to plead not guilty most people would opt for a simpler and quicker trial in the magistrates' court, not realising that the conviction rate is twice as high as the Crown Court (60% as against around 30%).

Is that the overall conviction rate, or the conviction rate among those who have pleaded not guilty?

I ask because of the apparent conflict with Mel's statement that "In reality, far fewer people are found guilty by magistrates than by juries". One possible resolution of that conflict is if it's the overall conviction rate and Mel's statement is only about the cases where the magistrate finds the defendant guilty in the sense of actually making a decision about his or her guilt, i.e. where the defendant pleaded not guilty.

Not the only such resolution - e.g. Mel could still be stating something she saw in the report she read (rather than something she determined for herself from other sources - which of those is the intended context of her statement doesn't seem clear to me) and that report could simply have got it wrong! But a plausible enough resolution of it to be worth asking about.

Gengulphus

[redsturgeon]

And even if they wanted to plead not guilty most people would opt for a simpler and quicker trial in the magistrates' court, not realising that the conviction rate is twice as high as the Crown Court (60% as against around 30%).

Is that the overall conviction rate, or the conviction rate among those who have pleaded not guilty?

I ask because of the apparent conflict with Mel's statement that "In reality, far fewer people are found guilty by magistrates than by juries". One possible resolution of that conflict is if it's the overall conviction rate and Mel's statement is only about the cases where the magistrate finds the defendant guilty in the sense of actually making a decision about his or her guilt, i.e. where the defendant pleaded not guilty.

Not the only such resolution - e.g. Mel could still be stating something she saw in the report she read (rather than something she determined for herself from other sources - which of those is the intended context of her statement doesn't seem clear to me) and that report could simply have got it wrong! But a plausible enough resolution of it to be worth asking about.

Gengulphus

From the 2011-12 CPS report

In 2011/12 the CPS published ‘conviction rates’ of 87% in the Magistrates’ Courts and 81% in the Crown Court. However, these statistics are misleading because they include guilty pleas. Including guilty pleas in the assessment of the agency’s effectiveness in bringing prosecutions skews the results because many factors contribute to a defendant pleading guilty. If guilty pleas are excluded the CPS actually achieved a conviction rate of 60% of trials heard in Magistrates’ Court and “fewer than one-third” of trials heard in the Crown Court.

[melonfool]

Ah, so it's the opposite of the research I read - maybe it was older or something.

I wouldn't be able to re-find it as it was quite a few years ago now. Sorry to be misleading.

Mel

[chas49]

I don't think this has been highlighted in this topic specifically - sorry if I've overlooked something!

Most of the discussion here has been about Identity Documents Act 2010 (IDA2010) section 6 "Possession of false identity documents etc without reasonable excuse", which is a "triable either way" offence.

There's a more serious offence under section 4 "Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention" which is an indictable offence.

Anyway, I think the OP has his/her answer - it is an offence to have certain types of false document (the specific offence may depend on the circumstances, and any use of the document). Other documents (such as fake utility bills) are not illegal to possess, but using them is likely to be an offence (at least in some circumstances).

[Lootman]

"it was worthwhile. In one case the charges were dropped the day before the trial." I can't see there can be any link between that and the type of trial. If there isn't enough evidence for one, there isn't enough evidence for either.

The way it was explained to me was that if the probability of getting a conviction at a jury trial is less than at a bench trial (and CK's statistics back that up), then the prosecutor is more likely to either drop the charges (if the case is weak) or make a deal (if the case is better).

"although it costs more"

I think your lawyer did a number on you.

How much is your freedom worth? I was facing prison time. In fact a friend of mine got 16 months. I got time served (a total of 24 hours, in Bow Street nick, interestingly), probation, a small fine and the opportunity to have the conviction reversed later.

Now, if the jury trial had happened it would have been a lot more expensive. But it didn't, as noted, and of course it is expensive for the prosecutors as well, which is another reason why they prefer to avoid a jury trial.

[Lootman]

In 2011/12 the CPS published ‘conviction rates’ of 87% in the Magistrates’ Courts and 81% in the Crown Court. However, these statistics are misleading because they include guilty pleas. Including guilty pleas in the assessment of the agency’s effectiveness in bringing prosecutions skews the results because many factors contribute to a defendant pleading guilty. If guilty pleas are excluded the CPS actually achieved a conviction rate of 60% of trials heard in Magistrates’ Court and “fewer than one-third” of trials heard in the Crown Court.

That absolutely makes sense. The statistics are only interesting and relevant for contested cases, where the accused doesn't capitulate and does the prosecution's job for them. But I wonder whether cases that settle before trial are included. Typically they will still lead to a conviction, but for a lessor charge than the original one, or for one count rather than several. A conviction with a lessor punishment is at least a partial victory for the accused and might still justify his election of a jury trial. Sort of a draw rather than a win or a loss.

I was told that the initial plea should always be "not guilty". For that purpose it doesn't really matter whether you "did the deed" or not. It's really just a starting point for the criminal proceedings, and there are opportunities to change the plea later.

Pleading "not guilty" makes the statement that you're not going to be intimidated by the court and that the prosecution is going to have to do some work. (And bear in mind that prosecution services are government departments and, as such, they are underpaid and overworked. With limited resources they have to pick and choose their battles).

But as CK said, many accused just take the easy path, plead to the charges and take their lumps. It's cheap, simple and stress-free but you're giving up. If it's just a fine than that can make sense. If a custodial sentence is possible, that's another matter.

The numbers cited appear to indicate that a defendant has perhaps a 70% chance, on average, of getting off at a jury trial. And that shows the difficulty of proving something to a panel of ordinary people beyond any reasonable doubt. That's a high burden especially when it comes to proving fuzzier things like intent and motive. And my own experience as a juror backs that up.

[Clitheroekid]

I was told that the initial plea should always be "not guilty". For that purpose it doesn't really matter whether you "did the deed" or not. It's really just a starting point for the criminal proceedings, and there are opportunities to change the plea later.

In many cases such advice would be nonsensical (apart from generating more cash for the lawyer, which is obviously a good thing ). In most criminal cases the defendant is guilty, can be easily proven to be guilty, and is quite rightly keen to take the substantial sentencing discount that a guilty plea will provide.

Admittedly, amongst professional criminals who know they're going to jail it's not uncommon for them to plead not guilty in order to buy some time to arrange their affairs (transfer money to untraceable offshore accounts, for example). They know they can always change the plea once they’ve completed these tasks and still receive a discount (though smaller than for a guilty plea at the outset).

But as CK said, many accused just take the easy path, plead to the charges and take their lumps. It's cheap, simple and stress-free but you're giving up.

Most crims who plead do so because they are guilty, not because it's "cheap, simple and stress-free". It's not "giving up", it's just common sense.

The numbers cited appear to indicate that a defendant has perhaps a 70% chance, on average, of getting off at a jury trial

Or another way of looking at it is that even if you aren't guilty there is still a 30% chance of being convicted by a jury! Bear in mind that the only cases that reach a jury are those where the defendant either genuinely is innocent or at least thinks the significant sentencing penalty for conviction after a trial is worth the risk.

Going before a jury is a high risk option. Many jurors are frankly too thick to be on a jury, others are swayed by emotion rather than reason to reach the wrong result and they are just as likely to convict an innocent person because they don't like the cut of his jib as acquit a guilty one.

Another risk of opting for the Crown Court is that the sentencing powers of a CC judge are effectively unlimited, or at least limited only by statutory maximums, whereas the mags can't sentence to more than 6 months. This is a powerful factor in some cases.

In short, there is no `one size fits all’ answer of whether to opt for the mags or the CC. Each case has to be judged on its individual merits.

[Alaric]

Bear in mind that the only cases that reach a jury are those where the defendant either genuinely is innocent or at least thinks the significant sentencing penalty for conviction after a trial is worth the risk.

How about those cases where the jury is expected to give guidance on what is and is not acceptable behaviour? I'm thinking of that alleged rape case involving two footballers. Both admitted having sex under similar but not identical circumstances and both claimed consent. On the first trial, one was acquitted, the other guilty. On a retrial with fresh evidence about the victim's previous activity, the second was also found not guilty.

[Lootman]

Most criminals who plead do so because they are guilty, not because it's "cheap, simple and stress-free". It's not "giving up", it's just common sense.

That's an interesting perspective. In my (fortunately very limited) experience of being in the criminal justice system, a plea is not so much a statement about whether or not you committed the crime but rather an instruction to the court about how you want to be treated by it.

So if you did the crime then it's not a lie, and certainly not perjury, to plead not guilty. It's simply a statement that you want the case to be proven. And if you did the crime but have good reasons to believe that it cannot be proven, then it's perfectly reasonable to plead not guilty, no matter how guilty you may be.

And taking into account your observation that you can be found guilty even if you are innocent, there may be some who genuinely are innocent but think that they might lose at trial, for various reasons. So even an innocent person, in some circumstances, might deem it prudent to cop to something they didn't do.

That said I'm sure there are some who are so consumed with guilt, fear and shame that it just feels better to own up, throw yourself onto the mercy of the court and get it over with. But it's hardly wrong for even a guilty criminal to demand his day in court and take his chances. We are all innocent until proven guilty.

In short, there is no `one size fits all’ answer of whether to opt for the mags or the CC. Each case has to be judged on its individual merits.

Agreed. As I recall (this was a long time ago, my memory is hazy and the rules/procedures may have changed) there was a period of time between the initial plea and the scheduling of a jury trial on the CC calendar. During this time the two sides have to exchange the evidence they will produce and the witnesses they will call at trial.

So before the trial both sides will have a much better picture of the balance of probabilities. And that can be used to negotiate a deal that avoids the actual trial and ensures that both sides get some of what they want, rather than the risk of winner-takes-all.

I'd be curious to know what percentage of cases booked to the Crown Court actually get as a far as a trial.

[melonfool]

I'd be curious to know what percentage of cases booked to the Crown Court actually get as a far as a trial.

Google is your friend:

http://open.justice.gov.uk/courts/criminal-cases/

Mel

[Gengulphus]

Most criminals who plead do so because they are guilty, not because it's "cheap, simple and stress-free". It's not "giving up", it's just common sense.

That's an interesting perspective. In my (fortunately very limited) experience of being in the criminal justice system, a plea is not so much a statement about whether or not you committed the crime but rather an instruction to the court about how you want to be treated by it.

So if you did the crime then it's not a lie, and certainly not perjury, to plead not guilty. It's simply a statement that you want the case to be proven. And if you did the crime but have good reasons to believe that it cannot be proven, then it's perfectly reasonable to plead not guilty, no matter how guilty you may be.

And taking into account your observation that you can be found guilty even if you are innocent, there may be some who genuinely are innocent but think that they might lose at trial, for various reasons. So even an innocent person, in some circumstances, might deem it prudent to cop to something they didn't do.

That said I'm sure there are some who are so consumed with guilt, fear and shame that it just feels better to own up, throw yourself onto the mercy of the court and get it over with. But it's hardly wrong for even a guilty criminal to demand his day in court and take his chances. We are all innocent until proven guilty.

I think you're over-complicating this. CK said that they plead guilty because they are guilty, not because they feel guilty. Presumably there are some who are guilty and feel so consumed with guilt, fear and shame that they decide to own up, but my bet would be that most of those who plead guilty because they are guilty do so not out of any feelings of guilt, but because they know it can easily be proved that they are guilty.

E.g. consider the guy who last year decided to try to break into my house. I was in at the time, called the police and he fled after having smashed a window but failed to then actually wrench the window open to climb in - he wasn't quite stupid enough to try to climb through the broken windowpane. He was however stupid enough to fail to take the precaution of wearing gloves, and had left his fingerprints on the broken bits of glass - and his fingerprints were on file. He was picked up within days.

He pleaded guilty. Was that because he felt overwhelmed with feelings of guilt? Or because he knew that if he pleaded not guilty, he might make the prosecution work a little bit harder for the conviction - they would actually have to be cross-examined about the evidence in court - but that was of little value to him compared with the cost of facing a longer sentence at the end of it? I don't actually know for certain why he chose to plead guilty, of course - but my money would be heavily on the latter explanation!

Gengulphus

[melonfool]

I think you're over-complicating this. CK said that they plead guilty because they are guilty, not because they feel guilty. Presumably there are some who are guilty and feel so consumed with guilt, fear and shame that they decide to own up, but my bet would be that most of those who plead guilty because they are guilty do so not out of any feelings of guilt, but because they know it can easily be proved that they are guilty.

E.g. consider the guy who last year decided to try to break into my house. I was in at the time, called the police and he fled after having smashed a window but failed to then actually wrench the window open to climb in - he wasn't quite stupid enough to try to climb through the broken windowpane. He was however stupid enough to fail to take the precaution of wearing gloves, and had left his fingerprints on the broken bits of glass - and his fingerprints were on file. He was picked up within days.

He pleaded guilty. Was that because he felt overwhelmed with feelings of guilt? Or because he knew that if he pleaded not guilty, he might make the prosecution work a little bit harder for the conviction - they would actually have to be cross-examined about the evidence in court - but that was of little value to him compared with the cost of facing a longer sentence at the end of it? I don't actually know for certain why he chose to plead guilty, of course - but my money would be heavily on the latter explanation!

Gengulphus

Also, in a law that requires no 'intent' proving guilt is very easy. If you're caught with fake docs what are your options?

1) reasonable excuse - might even avoid prosecution
2) 'they're not fake'
3) 'that's not my pocket'
4) 'it's a fit up gov'?

Mel

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Getting a bit off-topic guys! Do you want this split to carry on elsewhere?? (chas49)

[Lootman]

most of those who plead guilty because they are guilty do so not out of any feelings of guilt, but because they know it can easily be proved that they are guilty.

I don't think we really disagree. My point was that it isn't usually the fact that you are guilty that causes you to plead guilty, but rather your (lawyer's) perception of whether that guilt can be proven.

So in your example with the fingerprints, it would be prudent to plead guilty. If the evidence is instead (say) an eye witness claim, then that can be challenged under cross-examination, creating doubt. In that case a not guilty plea allows more time to discover what the prosecution has on you. And then negotiate a deal without going as far as a jury trial which, as CK notes, can be something of a lottery.

Happy to discuss elsewhere if it's deemed off-topic.