Is a lawyer in the United Kingdom obliged by law to inform the court or the police if his client confesses crime he has commited? Is a lawyer in the United Kingdom obliged by law to inform the court or the police if his or her client confesses to a crime he or she has committed? I looked everywhere, can't find this answer.
Assuming that privilege applies, no Not all communications with your lawyer trigger privilege and if it doesn’t then the lawyer is not your lawyer and is under the same obligation to report as any other member of the public. If privilege does apply then they must keep your secrets. If they are defending you and you confess to the crime then they can: represent you if you plead guilty withdraw unless that would prejudice your defence continue to act providing that they do not: suggest someone else committed the offence set up a defence inconsistent with the confession they can: argue the prosecution has not made their case, that you are not guilty of the offence charged by reason of law, or argue for any other (non prohibited) reason that you should not be convicted.
TL;DR Never; unless there is a specific law in the jurisdiction that requires it, however, that is a separate crime, it doesn't make you an accomplice to the first crime. There is no general obligation to report a crime; some jurisdictions may have legislated to make reporting mandatory, either generally or for specific professions. Accomplice From the link, an accomplice is: One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime. Mandatory Reporting Many jurisdictions impose an obligation on certain professions to report suspected crimes. The most common and obvious being a police officer who generally has an obligation to report all suspected crimes. Other professions include doctors, teachers, nurses etc. in the case of suspected child abuse; sometimes this extends to elder abuse but usually doesn't include an obligation to report spousal abuse. If a person with such an obligation fails to report, they have not become an accomplice to the original crime or any future crime; they have broken a different law on their own. General consequences In general, a witness to a crime is not required to report it. They could be asked to give a statement but are not obliged to and would not be subject to arrest. If they were subpoenaed to appear in court as a witness then they would be obliged to do so and give evidence; failure to do either would be contempt of court. To be clear, a perpetrator of a crime is also not obliged to report it and is protected from contempt by rules about self-incrimination like the US Fifth Amendment. As an aside, NSW, Australia has recently passed a law that while maintaining the accused's right not to testify has allowed juries and judges to draw inference from the silence in their deliberations. Specific Laws Some jurisdictions have specific laws that make it a crime not to report. For example, in New South Wales, Australia Section 316 of the Crimes Act makes it an offence to conceal a serious indictable offence (i.e. one with a maximum penalty or 5 or more years gaol) that a person &quot;knows or believes&quot; has occurred without &quot;reasonable excuse&quot;. The punishment is up to 2 years; if you solicit or accept any benefit for concealing it, the punishment is 5 years. Prosecution for people who came by the information as a result of practicing certain professions requires permission of the Attorney General. Privilege A person may become aware of a crime through disclosure as part of a professional-client relationship. Such disclosures may be subject to privilege. At common law, only the lawyer-client relationship is legally privileged meaning that a lawyer cannot disclose what their client has said to them. This does not cover advice on committing or covering up a crime - if a lawyer does this there is no privilege and the lawyer may become an accomplice. Closely related is the litigation privilege where communications prepared as part of litigation (including criminal prosecutions) are protected even if they are not between the lawyer and the client. Some jurisdictions have statutorily extended this privilege to other relationships: doctor-patient, priest-confessor, pastor-parishioner, accountant-client, psychologist-patient etc. Check your local guides. Your examples The bar fight witness has no obligation to report and is not an accomplice. In NSW, this is the crime of affray, a serious indictable offence, and must be reported. The mother of the child has no obligation to report and, unless she is assisting or encouraging the commission of the sexual assault, is not an accomplice. Further, spousal testimonial privilege does not apply; i.e. the mother could be compelled to give evidence against the boyfriend or face contempt. In NSW, this is the crime of Sexual intercourse-child under 10, a serious indictable offence, and must be reported. The passenger has no obligation to report and is not an accomplice. In NSW, this is the crime of failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing death or grievous bodily harm, a serious indictable offence, and must be reported. Sub-questions At what point does one's involvement become such that they are guilty simply for failing to report another individual, assuming they have not actively done anything to directly support the crime otherwise? At the point where the person moves from being a witness to a participant by assisting or encouraging the perpetrator. ... if someone is indirectly benefiting from a crime they do not encourage or facilitate, ..., does this make them an accomplice? No, however, if the person knows that the benefit are the proceeds of crime then they could be charged with receiving stolen property and would not have good title in the property even if they didn't know. presumably a bar serving a drink to someone they know is a bookie doesn't make them guilty, even if the bookie presumably earned the money he is using to buy the drink via an illegal job? It depends if they know the money is the proceeds of crime; if they do then receiving it is a crime in its own right but it doesn't make them an accomplice.
Must/may the court give that instruction? No. It would be error for the court to give that instruction. The only privilege for which an adverse inference instruction is generally authorized in civil litigation is the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This is because when you invoke it, you are implicitly asserting that your testimony could be used against you, if you gave it, to show that you were guilty of a crime, and because a relevant question will be about events pertinent to the lawsuit. An adverse inference is also not allowed for invoking the 5th Amendment when you are a defendant in a criminal case because that would undermine its purpose in the the criminal justice system. An invocation of a marital privilege, in contrast, merely implies that you are married, which is not something that would normally and naturally suggest that you did something for which there is civil liability. One could probably imagine a fact pattern in which being married was a disputed issue that could give rise to liability (e.g. under the &quot;family car doctrine&quot;), of course, in which the invocation of the privilege would estop A from asserting a defense on the ground that he isn't married to A's wife (either at the time of the communication if the confidential communication privilege is raised, or at the time of the testimony, if the right to not testify against a spouse privilege is raised, as the case might be). Tricky cases would involve people who were unmarried at the time of the accident but subsequently married. But, outside very unusual facts, people generally don't deny that they are married in a lawsuit and then try to assert the marital privilege in a lawsuit. Does the answer change depending on whether it is the litigant or the spouse who invokes the privilege? No.
No That is nothing but fiction. Assuming that this is in the US, the police would (probably, there are some exceptions) have had to deliver the well-known "Miranda" warnings, that the suspect has the right to silence, the right to consult a lawyer, and the right to have a free lawyer if unable to afford one, and that statements may be used against the subject. If, after those warnings, the suspect chooses to confess, or to make a statement, that confession or statement would be fully admissible, even if the suspect did not have a lawyer present, unless there was some other reason for the statement to be excluded. No such reason is mentioned in the question. It is simply not the case in the US that a confession is excluded just because no lawyer was present, nor is that the law anywhere that I know of. If the police failed to give the warnings when they were required, then any statements or confessions would be excluded. The decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) says: law enforcement officials took the defendant into custody and interrogated him in a police station for the purpose of obtaining a confession. The police did not effectively advise him of his right to remain silent or of his right to consult with his attorney. Rather, they confronted him with an alleged accomplice who accused him of having perpetrated a murder. When the defendant denied the accusation and said "I didn't shoot Manuel, you did it," they handcuffed him and took him to an interrogation room. There, while handcuffed and standing, he was questioned for four hours until he confessed. During this interrogation, the police denied his request to speak to his attorney, and they prevented his retained attorney, who had come to the police station, from consulting with him. At his trial, the State, over his objection, introduced the confession against him. We held that the statements thus made were constitutionally inadmissible. ... the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. [Footnote 4] As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. That tells you exactly what the police are forbidden to do. Nowhere does it say that a lawyer must be present. Indeed it says the opposite: The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. That means that s/he can confess after being warned, and such confession would be admissible, provided that s/he knew and understood those rights.
Jan Böhmermann faces prosecution in Germany for violating their penal code section 103 as discussed here. Lèse-majesté is not a crime in the UK, though apparently it was a common law crime in Scotland until 2010 (though not prosecuted since 1715). Though there is always the possibility of a defamation lawsuit, depending on what you say.
Disclosure to police of an illegal recording is permitted by s. 193(2)(e), and in court by s. 193(2)(a). The recording could be excluded if the person who made the recording did so on behalf of police (to sidestep their obligation to obtain a warrant), but even then its importance as evidence may outweigh other Charter considerations.
Not legal advice - you should consult an attorney who knows your local jurisdiction. That's a general statement, but especially true here because the GDPR does not include personal liability for directors (or others) in the event of a data breach, but domestic laws may indeed do just that. The UK is one example where certain circumstances can lead to criminal liability for directors of a firm in the event of a breach. That said, your company should care. The fines for knowingly allowing a breach or not reporting it properly in a timely manner have been made more significant than the prior Directive. There are things you could do to potentially mitigate consequences in the event of a breach and a fine being levied on the company, such as aligning with best practices and getting certifications. In sum, the actual punishments for noncompliance will vary by jurisdiction, but any business that handles data in the EU should undoubtedly be ensuring it is aware of what, if any, obligations it has and taking steps to comply before May's deadline.
It is not entrapment because entrapment must be done by officers of the State (police usually). A member of the public inducing another to commit a crime is not entrapment and not a defense to having committed it. Entrapment is a "thing" in Ireland as it is in all common law jurisdictions, however, the specific limits on what police can and cannot do vary by jurisdiction. Police posing as underage children to catch pedophiles is legal throughout Australia (i.e., not entrapment). Police are more restricted in Canada and the USA but I believe that online "trawling" by police is legal in those jurisdictions too, however, they must remain more "passive" than Australian police. Yes, there is a crime being committed, the crime of attempting to engage in underage sex. It doesn't matter that the actual crime attempted is impossible to commit because the "victim" is not actually underage. Evidence is evidence – it doesn't matter who collects it. However, amateurs in the handling of evidence are more likely to botch it up in a way that would allow the defense to have it ruled inadmissible than professionals (although even they can botch it up).