Answering crown bail with coronavirus Meet Bob. Bob has been charged with an either way offence, for which he has elected to undergo a jury trial in crown court when appearing before a magistrate. The magistrate bailed him for another month, to reappear at a crown court after that time to re-enter his plea. However, in the days leading up to his scheduled appearance, he has tested positive for Coronavirus. What does the law requires Bob to do?
The very first thing Bob should do is call his doctor to see if he needs medical treatment. The second thing Bob should do is call his lawyer (solicitor and/or barrister), who will be familiar with the necessary procedure to request an adjournment. In general, court proceedings can be adjourned if the defendant's presence is required but they cannot attend due to ill health or similar involuntary issues. A medical certificate may be required, so Bob may need to contact his doctor to see about getting one. Details about the requirements for a medical certificate are in Section 5C of the Criminal Practice Directions. In particular, 5C.2: If a medical certificate is accepted by the court, this will result in cases (including contested hearings and trials) being adjourned rather than the court issuing a warrant for the defendant’s arrest without bail. Medical certificates will also provide the defendant with sufficient evidence to defend a charge of failure to surrender to bail.
No If she has probable cause, yes. The question is whether "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts [Bob is a thief] are probably true"? Its likely that the answer to this question is yes. None No Charlotte listens to Alice, Charlotte asks Bob questions which Bob may or may not answer. Charlotte can ask Bob to produce the receipt, Bob doesn't have to. Charlotte can ask to search Bob, Bob doesn't have to consent. If Bob tries to leave, if Charlotte has reasonable suspicion the Bob has committed a crime (which she could certainly justify) she may detain him temporarily without arrest. If Charlotte has probable cause to believe that Bob has committed a crime (which she could probably justify) then she can arrest him.
The defence in a criminal case has no obligation to inform the prosecution of anything. The onus is on the prosecution to provide the evidence to convict and the defence doesn't have to and indeed shouldn't help them do it. The defence can and probably would use conflicting statements by a prosecution witness to discredit that witness in the eyes of the jury. These do not have to be material to the case: just showing the witness is inconsistent in general is helpful.
He cannot enter a Guilty Plea until he has been charged with a crime. He would only be charged with a crime if the Prosecution believes they have enough evidence for a conviction. If they believe &quot;the true culprit is still out there&quot;, they would not arrest or charge or attempt to prosecute &quot;Bob&quot;. He can hire an attorney, and go on TV and say he is guilty, and beg to be prosecuted. The District Attorney (or similar Office) can simply respond, &quot;We are aware of the claims by Bob. At this time, we do not have enough evidence to support charging Bob with a crime. The investigation continues.&quot; Somewhat ironically, if they have substantial evidence that Bob is not the murderer, he can then be charged with Making a False Report.
The Howard League for Penal Reform, who I presume are well informed about the subject, issued a press release including the following: “There remains the problem of people who have had the criminal courts charge imposed on them, many of whom will simply not be able to pay. We call on magistrates to exercise compassion and common sense when these unfortunate people are returned to court.” So the answer is yes, unless they can convince a magistrate that the charge is unaffordable when they get hauled back to court for non-payment. As the abolition of the charge was done by secondary legislation, I doubt there would be powers to act retroactively, even if this was thought desirable.
Considering that the US legal system is more or less similar in practice to the English Courts, yes it is possible to plea bargian a deal. I'm linking to the wikipedia article on the matter with a specific link to the England and Wales for guidence. Normally, I'd explain, but I'm an American and the differences between Magistrate and Crown courts are big enough differences that I can't tell you what the differences in the case is. I should point out this is a legal area where America differences with much of the world. 90% of the United States criminal cases (and a good number of civil cases, which are settled privately before discovery phase) are plea bargained to lesser sentences. Additionally remorse has nothing to do with the plea bargain. You might only be sorry that you got caught breaking the law and can still plea. The lighter sentence is sort of a "thank you" for saving the state money in not having to build their case against you. It is also used to coerce cooperation with the police, as they may have the accused dead to rights and can prosecute him successfully, but he's a little fish who can give intel to a big fish (this usually comes with the caveat of it being a sworn statement, so they can still prosecute you for something if you're lying... OR that the deal holds on condition that everything is factually true. If evidence contradicts you, you're charged as if you never made a deal). It's also important to note that the police will not honor their deals made for your confession... but they will offer you deals (In the United States, police are allowed to lie to you and do it all the time). However, the prosecutor will honor their deals. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. Finally, most jurisdictions allow the judge final say at sentencing, so if the prosecutor does honor the deal and advises the sentence, don't get upset if the judge is tougher and gives you a harsher sentence on the crime, or rejects your plea outright (expect him to scold the prosecutor for wasting his time with a horrible deal, too. Watch the Law and Order SVU episode Raw for a particularly wonderful instance of this rare event occurring). As a part of US federalism, the rules about this change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so make sure you understand this. Another thing to be aware of is that a prosecutor who offers a plea could be doing so because they have a weak case. If you are absolutely sure the prosecutor has the wrong guy, it may be to your benefit to go to trial and have them prove it. Innocent people do go to jail all the time because they think there is something worse on them than the plea deal and its hard to fight off as you cannot appeal a plea deal as easily as a court conviction. I would definitely do some leg work into the English Legal system's opinions on plea bargains. Just because they have it does not mean the state lawyers like employing it and many jurisdictions see it as full on corruption in other parts of the world, even the Common Law jurisdictions.
The security guard, acting for the (now former) owner of the property doesn't know the new ownership of the property and asks for evidence Bob now owns the property. The security guard is free to ask. Bob cannot produce a receipt for his purchase of the property. The security guard asks which checkout Bob used, so that the security guard can check its records for the transaction. Bob doesn't know specifically and says the checkout was one of three. The security guard asks Bob to remain while each of the three checkouts is checked until Bob's transaction is discovered (or not). The security guard is free to ask. Bob is legally free to leave with his property but the security guard may think he has reasonable grounds for suspicion of shoplifting and decide to try to detain Bob on suspicion of shoplifting until the ownership of the property is established. As any member of the public, the security guard may use &quot;as much force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.&quot; (s3 Criminal Law Act 1967) Bob is also free to leave without his property. In this case, as there could be no grounds for suspicion of shoplifting, only attempted shoplifting, it seems unlikely that any force would be reasonable. Of course, depending on retailer policy the security guard may be allowed to ban Bob from the premises if Bob doesn't cooperate. https://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/being-a-security-guard/
The Star Vancouver has a good article outlining the actual charges. Meng is not charged with "violating an embargo" but with defrauding U.S. financial institutions. It may be easier to report that the "crime" is violating sanctions but it's a little more nuanced. Meng is charged with defrauding U.S. financial institutions in order to avoid sanctions. From the article: The U.S. authorities allege Meng committed fraud by telling an HSBC executive her company was in compliance with U.S. sanctions against Iran limiting communication technology. The meeting took place in 2013, but the location was not revealed. HSBC is based in London with operations in the United States. Joanna Chiu, the Star reporter who followed the bail hearing, tweeted: US banks became concerned about the relationship between Huawei and subsidiary SkyCom. Meng told banks the two were separate when in fact "Huawei is SkyCom. This is the alleged fraud". Supposedly, the claims were in a PowerPoint presentation made to a financial institution in 2013. As a result of those claims, banks in the U.S. cleared financial transactions for Huawei. The nexus between Meng, Huawei, SkyCom and U.S. law is Meng making claims to HSBC that Huawei is not related to SkyCom inducing U.S. based financial institutions to unknowingly engage in transactions that violated sanctions with Iran. Thus, the fraud charge against Meng.