Psychic Jailed

[StewartP]

Apologies if this has already been posted.

I did a search and didn't find it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/12/npsych12.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/12/ixuknews.html

Includes the tautological phrase A bogus psychic healer who conned customers

[Anacoluthon64]

Hmm, there's something odd about the case. The Crown Court's ruling seems to be based on the finding that the accused psychic "abused [troubled people's] trust by requiring them to make payments for services that were not necessary and could never be performed." Yet at the same time, the article reports that, "Sister Grace ... warned that the spells she had cast would prove fatal unless she was paid to lift them" (emphasis mine). However, no mention is made of either blackmail or extortion, which is what that last bit certainly sounds like to me.

Surely there's a moral somewhere in this sorry tale that seems to revolve around the question of which is worse: the apparently bottomless credulity of the victims, or the accused's machinations and exploitation thereof.

'Luthon64

[StewartP]

I agree. I thought the blackmail part was definitely the charge to go with. Like those dodgy roofers who force pensioners to cash points to withdraw money. For non-existant repairs

[Beady]

However, no mention is made of either blackmail or extortion, which is what that last bit certainly sounds like to me.

In order to blackmail someone, you have to threaten some type of harm in the future. The prosecutors probably didn't go for blackmail for one (or both) of two reasons: 1) The curse had already been placed, the harm had already been done and the "abuse" involved removing, not inflicting, the harm; 2) There's no such thing as a curse (in this sense), so there could be no possible harm; offering to repair harm that was never inflicted is fraud, not blackmail.

Some of this sounds specious, but legal arguments can be bloody tortured in their logic.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In order to blackmail someone, you have to threaten some type of harm in the future. The prosecutors probably didn't go for blackmail for one (or both) of two reasons: 1) The curse had already been placed, the harm had already been done and the "abuse" involved removing, not inflicting, the harm; 2) There's no such thing as a curse (in this sense), so there could be no possible harm; offering to repair harm that was never inflicted is fraud, not blackmail.

Some of this sounds specious, but legal arguments can be bloody tortured in their logic.

1) The harm is not the curse, the harm is the death of the cursed person.

2) The threat does not need to be real. She has clearly threatened harm.

[Anacoluthon64]

No doubt about the tortuosity that frequently infuses legal argumentation.

From what is reported - and presently I have no other source of information in this context - it seems a fairly clear-cut case of blackmail, as I suggested. Jaggy Bunnet ably points out the rationale, which accords with my view.

'Luthon64

[Beady]

1) The harm is not the curse, the harm is the death of the cursed person.

Good luck, proving causation in a courtroom.

2) The threat does not need to be real. She has clearly threatened harm.

Good luck, convincing a jury of this, too.

The more I learn about how the law works, the more I'm amazed at the misconceptions the general public has about it. It's the general woo/skepticism thing in miniature.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Good luck, proving causation in a courtroom.


Good luck, convincing a jury of this, too.

The more I learn about how the law works, the more I'm amazed at the misconceptions the general public has about it. It's the general woo/skepticism thing in miniature.

Not required. As YOU stated:

"In order to blackmail someone, you have to threaten some type of harm in the future."

Death = some type of harm. And she has clearly threatened it - whether she has the ability to carry out the threat or not is irrelevant, the threat is the important thing.

According to your logic if I tell you that I have paid a hitman to kill you and then offer to call him to cancel the hit if you pay me a sum of money I am not blackmailing you as either the harm has already been done (if I have already taken the contract out) or there is no real harm (if I have not actually contracted a hitman).

[Anacoluthon64]

Good luck, proving causation in a courtroom.

Good luck, convincing a jury of this, too.

The more I learn about how the law works, the more I'm amazed at the misconceptions the general public has about it. It's the general woo/skepticism thing in miniature.Your reply seems to indicate that you haven't read the article linked to in the OP. FYI, the opening paragraphs:A bogus psychic healer who conned customers into giving her almost £60,000 to lift deadly curses that she claimed to have placed on their families was jailed for 15 months yesterday.

Going under the name of Sister Grace, Gina Stevenson, 33, warned that the spells she had cast would prove fatal unless she was paid to lift them.
A clear threat, imposed and followed by a demand for payment for ostensibly remedial action. Looks like blackmail, sounds like blackmail, smells like blackmail; you know the rest. I don't see how the fact that the threat itself is a hoax detracts from my assessment. After all, a false shout of "Fire!" where there is none, i.e. an equally non-existent threat, in a crowded place will lead to your prosecution even if no actual harm eventuates.

'Luthon64

[Beady]

Death = some type of harm. And she has clearly threatened it

No, she did not; you have misread the scenario. She "offered" to remove a pre-existing threat of death. What's more, according to the article, there was no evidence that a threat actually existed; she merely claimed that she had made a curse. Leaving aside any questions of whether a curse is effective, there was no evidence mentioned that she either did or attempted a curse, she merely said she did.

A defense lawyer would probably make arguments similar to the above, not necessarilly with the aim of convincing a jury, but with the aim of introducing controversy into the jury deliberations. The legal system is predisposed toward a person's innocence, and it takes incontrovertable facts to convict; controversy throws a conviction into doubt. There's also the very real possibility that a legal technicality such as I've outlined does, in fact, exist as a matter of law.

Besides, let's not loose sight of the fact that the information in the article is very limited.

ETA In any event, I feel comfortable in stating that the prosecution went with the charges they felt they were most able to prove.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, she did not; you have misread the scenario. She "offered" to remove a pre-existing threat of death.

A pre-existing threat of death that only pre-existed because SHE MADE THAT THREAT. That is like starting the defence of a child charged with murdering their parents: "Consider this poor orphan....".

What's more, according to the article, there was no evidence that a threat actually existed; she merely claimed that she had made a curse. Leaving aside any questions of whether a curse is effective, there was no evidence mentioned that she either did or attempted a curse, she merely said she did.

In exactly the same way in my example, which you have not addressed, there is no evidence of whether or not I have contracted a hit on you, only that I claim I have.

There's also the very real possibility that a legal technicality such as I've outlined does, in fact, exist as a matter of law.

Its possible, but until you produce some evidence....

[Beady]

Its possible, but until you produce some evidence....

Will you also produce evidence that cursing someone is illegal under British law? Or that blackmail charges would have been legally appropriate and carried a fair chance of conviction?

She was convicted because removing the curse was both unnecessary and impossible ("...not necessary and could never be performed"). Presumably this is because British law does not recognize the efficacy of a curse. If a curse is legally ineffective and impossible, then believing that you have been cursed is not reasonable under the law, and her victims were therefore not legally in reasonable fear for their lives.

Further, if a curse is not illegal, then I suggest it would be problematic to seek a conviction for threatening to perform an act that is not illegal.

[Anacoluthon64]

Perhaps a member of the forum who is well-versed in the vagaries of UK jurisprudence could resolve these questions. I seem to recall reading that in the UK a case of assault (as opposed to battery and/or GBH) can be made merely on the threat of physical harm. If that is true, then based on death unambiguously being physically harmful, we should also add assault to Gina Stevenson's growing list of offences.

'Luthon64

[Mojo]

No, she did not; you have misread the scenario. She "offered" to remove a pre-existing threat of death. What's more, according to the article, there was no evidence that a threat actually existed; she merely claimed that she had made a curse. Leaving aside any questions of whether a curse is effective, there was no evidence mentioned that she either did or attempted a curse, she merely said she did.

A defense lawyer would probably make arguments similar to the above, not necessarilly with the aim of convincing a jury, but with the aim of introducing controversy into the jury deliberations. The legal system is predisposed toward a person's innocence, and it takes incontrovertable facts to convict; controversy throws a conviction into doubt. There's also the very real possibility that a legal technicality such as I've outlined does, in fact, exist as a matter of law.

Besides, let's not loose sight of the fact that the information in the article is very limited.

ETA In any event, I feel comfortable in stating that the prosecution went with the charges they felt they were most able to prove.It appears that what she was charged with (or at least what she pled guilty to) was theft by means of fraud: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=14470684&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

Probably easier to prove than blackmail as the prosecution could easily show that the money changed hands. While the facts of the case look like a clear case of blackmail, the prosecution would actually have to prove the threat was made for a conviction.

[Mojo]

Perhaps a member of the forum who is well-versed in the vagaries of UK jurisprudence could resolve these questions. I seem to recall reading that in the UK a case of assault (as opposed to battery and/or GBH) can be made merely on the threat of physical harm. If that is true, then based on death unambiguously being physically harmful, we should also add assault to Gina Stevenson's growing list of offences. Assault is defined as "any act which puts a person in fear of immediate and unlawful violence". http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-14.html

I suspect that in this case the anticipated harm is too remote to count as an assault. It is a crime to threaten to kill someone though.

[Mojo]

Further, if a curse is not illegal, then I suggest it would be problematic to seek a conviction for threatening to perform an act that is not illegal.The threat to kill is still there though. I'm not sure that it is a defence say that the means by which the threat was to be carried out were implausible. In any case, here the threat was certainly intended to be plausible enough to get the victim to hand over the money.

[Mojo]

Threats to kill, contrary to section 16 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. (Archbold 19-124 to 19-129)

Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_c.html#15

There certainly was an intent that the victims would fear the threat would be carried out.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Will you also produce evidence that cursing someone is illegal under British law?

If I had claimed that it was, then it would be reasonable to expect me to provide evidence. However as I have never done so, then I feel under no such obligation.

Or that blackmail charges would have been legally appropriate and carried a fair chance of conviction?

I will do some digging and come back to you.

She was convicted because removing the curse was both unnecessary and impossible ("...not necessary and could never be performed").

Which is fine in dealing with what she was charged with, i.e. fraud. She fraudulently sold an impossible service. However this is not relevant to whether she has committed a separate crime of blackmail.

Presumably this is because British law does not recognize the efficacy of a curse. If a curse is legally ineffective and impossible, then believing that you have been cursed is not reasonable under the law, and her victims were therefore not legally in reasonable fear for their lives.

First of all, there is no such thing as British law. Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "legally in reasonable fear" or why this is relevant.

Further, if a curse is not illegal, then I suggest it would be problematic to seek a conviction for threatening to perform an act that is not illegal.

However threatening harm to someone if they do not give you money IS a crime.

[Anacoluthon64]

Assault is defined as "any act which puts a person in fear of immediate and unlawful violence".(Emphasis mine.) Thanks for clearing that up - the "immediate" bit obviously doesn't apply in this case, so a charge of assault would easily fail.

Pity.

'Luthon64

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Or that blackmail charges would have been legally appropriate and carried a fair chance of conviction?

OK, the relevant legislation for English law is the Theft Act 1968, s21:

"21.-(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief-

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. "

Lets examine the elements:

"with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another". Met - gain is represented by payment of the sums demanded.

"unwarranted demand with menaces". Met - threat of death or harm to the individual or their family would be manaces and the unwarranted demand is for the payment of money to remove this threat.

Possible defences:

Reasonable grounds for making demand - no chance of jury accepting this.

Proper means of reinforcing demand - again no jury is going to accept that threatening death is a proper means of reinforcing an unwarranted demand for payment.

The wikipedia entry is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

and may explain why the prosecutors chose not to proceed:

"But whatever the nature of the menace, it must be direct. Any vague threat to cause "something bad" to happen to some other person, except when certain demands are met, should not affect the mind of an ordinary person."

In other words they may have been worried that because it involved a curse, it should not affect the mind of an ordinary person and therefore would not constitute "menace". Not sure I would like to be the defence lawyer trying to argue that although my client had made threats the proposed method of carrying them out was so ludicrous it did not amount to menaces when the victims have believed it to a sufficient extent to hand over large amounts of money, but I can see why a prosecutor might go for an easier conviction for fraud.

[SirPhilip]

This is an important case in point - if lawmakers recognize the difference between freedom to practice religion/belief and fellowship to selling something (or the act of using religious or spiritual traditions (which many have grown up with and hold sacred) to extract money from desperate people) would simply be a matter of letting the law take care of it. If the con artist wants to contest it, let them prove it by the same standards everything else is: in a court of law.

No debunking or lengthy effort required, and it cuts right to the bottom line.

[Beady]

...but I can see why a prosecutor might go for an easier conviction for fraud.

That was my whole point. I've got a really bad tendency to get too involved with things.

Guess I'd better get back on my medication.

[Lamuella]

No, she did not; you have misread the scenario. She "offered" to remove a pre-existing threat of death. What's more, according to the article, there was no evidence that a threat actually existed; she merely claimed that she had made a curse.

All right: let's say that I serve you a meal, you eat it, then I tell you that there was a slow acting poison in the food, and that I'll only give you the antidote if you give me $20,000.

EVEN IF I had put nothing whatsoever in the food, that's still extortion.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

All right: let's say that I serve you a meal, you eat it, then I tell you that there was a slow acting poison in the food, and that I'll only give you the antidote if you give me $20,000.

EVEN IF I had put nothing whatsoever in the food, that's still extortion.

I don't think Beady is disagreeing with you. I think his point is that it may be difficult for the prosecution to prove "menace" if the threat is delivered in a form which would not affect the mind of a reasonable person (see wikipedia section quoted in my previous post).

I would much rather argue that a threat of death by poisoned food represents "menace" than a threat to cause death by curse.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That was my whole point. I've got a really bad tendency to get too involved with things.

Guess I'd better get back on my medication.

No problem. Made me read up on it and I learnt something so I'm happy.

[Mojo]

The wikipedia entry is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

and may explain why the prosecutors chose not to proceed:

"But whatever the nature of the menace, it must be direct. Any vague threat to cause "something bad" to happen to some other person, except when certain demands are met, should not affect the mind of an ordinary person."

In other words they may have been worried that because it involved a curse, it should not affect the mind of an ordinary person and therefore would not constitute "menace". That is the general rule. However, there is the case of R v. Garwood (1987) 85 Cr. App. R. 85, CA, which says that although the word "menaces" should be given its ordinary meaning, there are two possible exceptions to this. The second exception is the one relevant here: The second situation is where the threats in fact affected the mind of the victim, although they would not have affected the mind of a person of normal stability. In that case, in our judgment, the existence of menaces is proved providing that the accused man was aware of the likely effect of his actions upon the victim.
In the case we're discussing, there can be little doubt that the threats and demands for money were made because the psychic thought the victims were vulnerable to them.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That is the general rule. However, there is the case of R v. Garwood (1987) 85 Cr. App. R. 85, CA, which says that although the word "menaces" should be given its ordinary meaning, there are two possible exceptions to this. The second exception is the one relevant here:
In the case we're discussing, there can be little doubt that the threats and demands for money were made because the psychic thought the victims were vulnerable to them.

What was the other exception?

[Mojo]

What was the other exception?Pretty much the opposite of the one relevant to this case: where the threats might have affected the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability, but did not affect the person actually addressed.

[jhunter1163]

Guess the psychic didn't see the jail time coming...