tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post8790588355412297604..comments2024-03-28T09:19:27.451+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015RevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-33955033635416249172015-09-02T12:46:38.492+01:002015-09-02T12:46:38.492+01:00On your last point, does this create the situation...On your last point, does this create the situation where the supply of the printer might attract a more severe penalty that the commission of the crime itself? If so is this situation common in English law?KivranShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13540471245747220160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-82449789411852608302015-08-30T08:16:17.736+01:002015-08-30T08:16:17.736+01:00I think that Adrian's comment about the issue ...I think that Adrian's comment about the issue of travel documents, and how this turns the definition of "specialist printer" simply into "any printer" is a very pertinent one. One might argue that, clearly, by using the term "specialist", the law must mean something other than a common, everyday printer, since, otherwise, it would have just said (or included) "a printer", but it is not without its difficulties.<br /><br />I am surprised that it also only covers those who *supply* printers, rather than someone who offers a print-on-demand service of the same nature. However, this may be an issue of pragmatism: currently, no-one is doing this, and so there is no proven case for needing a law prohibiting it. <br /><br />I am less persuaded that limiting it to "knows that the equipment will be or is intended to be used for the purposes of criminal conduct" is a bad thing.<br /><br />I would agree that it is difficult to prove, but it is this very specific offence which the legislation sets out to prohibit: the "knowingly" selling of such a printer. The explanatory notes to the legislation set out a little bit about its background (http://legislation.data.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/16/notes/data.htm?wrap=true), and it appears to be a result of the MPS's "Project Genesius", which "identified that the police find it difficult to prosecute those who knowingly supply this equipment to criminals, because of the absence of a targeted offence." So, yes, proving "knowingly" might be very difficult, but that it exactly what it was designed to cover, rather than a result of poorly thought-through drafting.<br /><br />There is the also a benefit to this of criminal offences being tightly cast. Had it been "or reasonably should have known" or some such formulation, it mandates a degree of due diligence, and so places a burden on a business selling printers. If this was considered a necessary element to achieve the goal of the legislation, then perhaps it would have been a proportionate way to do so (although I am not immediately persuaded that that's the case) but, since it does not appear to be needed at the moment, not introducing an extra obligation on businesses is a good thing.<br /><br />(Why a specific offence over "encouraging or assisting", I am not sure, but, since a slightly different degree of knowledge / intention is required, perhaps there is a good reason for it. Similarly, there is a simple penalty for this — up to 10 years, or a fine, or both — rather than the penalty for which he would be liable for the offence which he intended to assist or encourage.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18427000118752159232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-88829900736281366072015-08-30T02:44:48.179+01:002015-08-30T02:44:48.179+01:00Why is HM government getting so bad at drafting ne...Why is HM government getting so bad at drafting new laws? Don't they have the money to hire someone with a brain even if they only have a load of duffers internally? Cecil Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16477035597238561739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-58081385803548868312015-08-29T15:59:14.247+01:002015-08-29T15:59:14.247+01:00Quite, so pointless in the first place (how it pro...Quite, so pointless in the first place (how it prove you knew buyers intentions), covered by existing law (aiding and abetting), and so badly drafted as to cover all ordinary printers, paper, network and USB cables being supplied, so not even covering the right things if ever it was enforceable.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-69406691391877189162015-08-29T15:56:36.505+01:002015-08-29T15:56:36.505+01:00I don't think this makes everyone a criminal -...I don't think this makes everyone a criminal - if the test is that you know the equipment will be used to commit a crime it will be a difficult one to prove if you are not personally acquainted with the buyer and are acting in the course of your normal business or domestic activities.<br /><br />I'm also not clear what this really adds the normal aiding and abetting stuff, especially for more serious crimes (such as fraud and lets face it that's a pretty likely use of "specialist printing equipment" if the intent is criminal) which is covered by part 2 of the Serious Crimes act 2007 which specifically makes an offense of "encouraging or assisting" a serious crime.nowtotallyhackedoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06687184924812362495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-16960157879133647552015-08-29T11:44:49.576+01:002015-08-29T11:44:49.576+01:00Make everyone a criminal and you have a police sta...Make everyone a criminal and you have a police state. Win (for Government)SimonFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03711861360301638111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-89898544746945659852015-08-29T10:29:18.309+01:002015-08-29T10:29:18.309+01:00"even in areas as simple as printing"
Th..."even in areas as simple as printing"<br />Though as you are proving, printing isn't a simple area at all, even if people think it is!Ionichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06785235601827719311noreply@blogger.com