In article ,
Alan Gould wrote:
In article , Janet Baraclough
writes

Quite apart from the terrorism act... in Scotland, at least, I think
there's still a criminal charge of being "equipped to commit a crime".

As in having a pair of hands?

Pretty close.

There are two problems with laws like the Terrorism Act. One is that
common law has implicit requirements that the prosecution must at
least show that an innocent explanation is implausible - I believe
that Scots law is the same as English here. Statute law does not,
and the requirements in the statute are assumed to be complete (well,
more-or-less).

A more serious one is that they often are left in abeyance for a
very long time, and then used to persecute dissenters or to promote
prejudice. Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act (Clive Ponting) and
the law on blasphemous libel (Scallywag, was it?) were abused in the
first way, and the SUS law and "going equipped" and "carrying an
offensive weapon" were abused in the second.

When I lived in the country, we used to carry shotguns along the road
without being hassled, and some people even posted guns on rarely used
roads! Yes, AT THE SAME TIME, gypsies and others were persecuted for
carrying working tools (e.g. a billhook or crowbar) on the road; in
one case, it was held not to be a defence that he was travelling to
a job where he needed the tool. Yes, really. He was told that he
should have been able to afford a car, and carrying one on a bicycle
was illegal.

All right, this was rare, and such cases were or would have been
overturned on appeal. But (a) such people don't have the 'pull' or
money for appeals and (b) that doesn't compensate for being prosecuted
and possibly convicted.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679