UK: Teenager jailed for refusing to disclose password

[MikeH]

I don't see how it's different to a reporter refusing to give up his source when ordered to by a court and serving time for contempt for that. (which you may well argue is also wrong)

[Dauphin]

I see it akin to whistleblowing, and so should not be disclosed.

[Snotty]

If youre not whistleblowing surely you are aiding and abetting?

[Dauphin]

No.

Although I don't know what you are getting at fully. Give me an example and I will explain my reasoning.

[Snotty]

I think perhaps I was not thinking of whistleblowing in a purely business sense, but

If you are aware of a wrongdoing (illegal, immoral?) and you make no moves to challenge, counter or reveal said wrongdoing then you abetting by inaction. I can understand how their would be extenuating circumstance in a lot of situations, but the principle is the same -

If a court can prove you are obstructing the course of justice by concealing your source then youre going down, right?

[Dauphin]

Unlike, say France, the only UK law I know where you have to provide information when you suspect any wrongdoing is in money laundering (there are others, but I don't know what they are). If you see an illegal act you do not have to provide any information or take any actions to prevent it. Aiding and abetting is actively assisting the crime to be performed.

[Wezil]

Suspected child abuse is often required to be reported, particularly for some professions (teachers, MDs, etc).

Catholics of course give themselves a pass on this one.

[Dauphin]

I would say anything from a duty of care position would require reporting. However if you were a random member of the public with no duty of care, and saw child abuse, I don't know if you would have to report.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Pour encourager les autres.

[Wezil]

I would say anything from a duty of care position would require reporting. However if you were a random member of the public with no duty of care, and saw child abuse, I don't know if you would have to report.

Fair enough, but where would a random member of the public witness money laundering? This too is a professional obligation is it not?

[Dauphin]

Fair enough, but where would a random member of the public witness money laundering? This too is a professional obligation is it not?

It is a professional obligation. But it's not restricted to professionals. A lot of money laundering goes on in pubs, bookies, etc and the public will come across situations where they suspect if something illegal is going on.

[Wezil]

Something illegal and money laundering could be a long way apart.

I don't think people passing cash in public is a reportable offence here (for anyone).

[Dauphin]

Sorry, I mean specifically money laundering. Passing cash is not a crime. Passing cash that you know or believe is drugs money and treating it as pub takings is a crime.

Ultimately, as a law, I don't think it has ever been enforced or used except against professionals.

[Dauphin]

Although, if you are found by the police with cash on you, and can not provide a reasonable explanation about why you have it, it can be seized under the proceeds of crime act. (de minimus £1,000 I think currently).

[Wezil]

"pub takings"? Illegal gaming/gambling proceeds? What we would call a "bookie"?

Although, if you are found by the police with cash on you, and can not provide a reasonable explanation about why you have it, it can be confiscated under the proceeds of crime act. (de minimus £1,000 I think currently).

I think we have a limit of $10K for that.