Spiking to be made specific offence in King's Speech

[Nearly Sane]

"Spiking is already a crime, covered by other pieces of legislation including the 1861 Offences against the Person Act."

I'm never completely comfortable by the approach of making crimes specific if they are covered by existing law. Where it's unclear, it's fine but here it doesn't feel needed.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2x0ev00rzmo

[jeremyp]

My first thought is that it is a complete waste of time. However, there are probably many people who don't realise that spiking is already illegal and maybe it will give them pause for thought.

I'm not talking about those who do it for nefarious purposes e.g. date rape drugs - they are surely aware that they are going to be breaking the law anyway, but those who do it "for a laugh" - for example, putting a vodka shot in somebody's drink at a party because they think it might be funny.

[Nearly Sane]

My first thought is that it is a complete waste of time. However, there are probably many people who don't realise that spiking is already illegal and maybe it will give them pause for thought.

I'm not talking about those who do it for nefarious purposes e.g. date rape drugs - they are surely aware that they are going to be breaking the law anyway, but those who do it "for a laugh" - for example, putting a vodka shot in somebody's drink at a party because they think it might be funny.

Surely an advertising campaign might be more effective than passing another law?

[Roses]

I am glad spiking a person's drink will be a specific offence. It has caused so many problems and even death!

[Nearly Sane]

I am glad spiking a person's drink will be a specific offence. It has caused so many problems and even death!

Why do you think making it a specific offence, as opposed to already being against the law will stop it?

[jeremyp]

Surely an advertising campaign might be more effective than passing another law?

I believe you are correct.

[jeremyp]

I am glad spiking a person's drink will be a specific offence. It has caused so many problems and even death!

I agree with the second part of that post. I'm not sure how the new law that makes something already illegal illegal is going to help.

[Roses]

Why do you think making it a specific offence, as opposed to already being against the law will stop it?

I am not saying it would stop it completely, but if it comes with a sentence forbidding the evil so and sos from going into pubs and buying alcohol, it might give them food for thought.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not saying it would stop it completely, but if it comes with a sentence forbidding the evil so and sos from going into pubs and buying alcohol, it find give them food for thought.

It's already against the law, and comes with punishment if found guilty.

[Nearly Sane]

I believe you are correct.

I think this is a good approach

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72v8rv3jp1o

[splashscuba]

"Spiking is already a crime, covered by other pieces of legislation including the 1861 Offences against the Person Act."

I'm never completely comfortable by the approach of making crimes specific if they are covered by existing law. Where it's unclear, it's fine but here it doesn't feel needed.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2x0ev00rzmo

Here's one law firm's reasoning:

How spiking is currently treated

Currently, spiking incidents are prosecuted under broader legislation, categorising it under either assault or poisoning. While this approach has been effective to an extent, it often results in complicated legal proceedings that can be challenging for both victims and the accused. Labour has advocated for this new dedicated offence, arguing it will improve the police’s ability to respond to and investigate these crimes.

www.slaterheelis.co.uk/crime-category/private-crime/what-is-spiking-spiking-to-be-made-a-specific-criminal-offence/

[Nearly Sane]

Here's one law firm's reasoning:

How spiking is currently treated

Currently, spiking incidents are prosecuted under broader legislation, categorising it under either assault or poisoning. While this approach has been effective to an extent, it often results in complicated legal proceedings that can be challenging for both victims and the accused. Labour has advocated for this new dedicated offence, arguing it will improve the police’s ability to respond to and investigate these crimes.

www.slaterheelis.co.uk/crime-category/private-crime/what-is-spiking-spiking-to-be-made-a-specific-criminal-offence/

Thanks, it seems similar in that case to the issue as regards 'dangerous cycling' in that thread. It's about the process. It's obvious though that this is a bigger priority given the numbers.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks, it seems similar in that case to the issue as regards 'dangerous cycling' in that thread. It's about the process. It's obvious though that this is a bigger priority given the numbers.

Although superficially they might seem similar, to my mind there are some major differences.

Firstly, as you point out, numbers. Incidents involving deaths due to cycling are tiny. By contrast the statistics on alleged incidents of spiking are huge - nearly 7000 last year. And I suspect this is the tip of an iceberg as I'd imagine many incidents go unreported. I think we can be pretty confident that a death on our roads or pavements involving a cyclist is not going to be unreported so the statistics will be an accurate record of the actual level of incidents.

Secondly - spiking involving prescription or illegal drugs is relatively new phenomenon, which is very much on the increase. Deaths involving cyclists are nothing new - they have been happening since bikes were around and the evidence suggests they are probably on the decline, albeit numbers are so small trends are hard to detect.

Third - intent. I doubt anyone who ultimately causes death on a bike goes out with the intention to kill, or to commit a crime. They may well be reckless or dangerous and should have foreseen potential consequences, but that it different to intending what actually happened. By contrast someone who spikes a drink, clearly intends to do this, so intends to commit a crime.

So on the third point I can see how a specific law on spiking, with the publicity that will ensue, may act as a deterrent (as was as to ensure convictions) as those intending to commit a crime may have second thoughts if it is absolutely clear that their intention is criminal. I don't see the same deterrent in the case of cyclists as they don't intend to commit a crime and likely won't think this would happen to them as they get on their bike.

And the final, and most important point - I cannot see why changing the law on cycling will make any material difference to the rates of charge and conviction (perhaps on sentencing, but that is a separate manner), simply because there is no evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'. That seems to be hugely different to spiking where it seems evidently clear that loads of people are spiking drinks and 'getting away with it'.

[Nearly Sane]

Although superficially they might seem similar, to my mind there are some major differences.

Firstly, as you point out, numbers. Incidents involving deaths due to cycling are tiny. By contrast the statistics on alleged incidents of spiking are huge - nearly 7000 last year. And I suspect this is the tip of an iceberg as I'd imagine many incidents go unreported. I think we can be pretty confident that a death on our roads or pavements involving a cyclist is not going to be unreported so the statistics will be an accurate record of the actual level of incidents.

Secondly - spiking involving prescription or illegal drugs is relatively new phenomenon, which is very much on the increase. Deaths involving cyclists are nothing new - they have been happening since bikes were around and the evidence suggests they are probably on the decline, albeit numbers are so small trends are hard to detect.

Third - intent. I doubt anyone who ultimately causes death on a bike goes out with the intention to kill, or to commit a crime. They may well be reckless or dangerous and should have foreseen potential consequences, but that it different to intending what actually happened. By contrast someone who spikes a drink, clearly intends to do this, so intends to commit a crime.

So on the third point I can see how a specific law on spiking, with the publicity that will ensue, may act as a deterrent (as was as to ensure convictions) as those intending to commit a crime may have second thoughts if it is absolutely clear that their intention is criminal. I don't see the same deterrent in the case of cyclists as they don't intend to commit a crime and likely won't think this would happen to them as they get on their bike.

And the final, and most important point - I cannot see why changing the law on cycling will make any material difference to the rates of charge and conviction (perhaps on sentencing, but that is a separate manner), simply because there is no evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'. That seems to be hugely different to spiking where it seems evidently clear that loads of people are spiking drinks and 'getting away with it'.

Are both covered by existing laws, and both a question of process?

[ProfessorDavey]

Are both covered by existing laws, and both a question of process?

I think the question is are both covered effectively by existing laws. I think the answer to deaths caused by dangerous cycling is clearly yes given the very high proportion of all death of pedestrians in a collision involving a cyclist that have resulted in prosecution, and custodial sentencing.

On spiking I think the answer is a clear no - given that over a 4 year period there were only 40 convictions (the data I've seen doesn't indicate whether these resulted in custodial or non-custodial sentences), despite there being likely well over 20,000 reported incidences over the same period.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the question is are both covered effectively by existing laws. I think the answer to deaths caused by dangerous cycling is clearly yes given the very high proportion of all death of pedestrians in a collision involving a cyclist that have resulted in prosecution, and custodial sentencing.

On spiking I think the answer is a clear no - given that over a 4 year period there were only 40 convictions (the data I've seen doesn't indicate whether these resulted in custodial or non-custodial sentences), despite there being likely well over 20,000 reported incidences over the same period.

And yet you were unequivocal in the case of cycling that it being covered was fine. Welcome to the party, if a bit late 

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet you were unequivocal in the case of cycling that it being covered was fine. Welcome to the party, if a bit late

Because deaths by pedestrians in collisions with cyclists (which may be complete accidents or may have the pedestrian as the party at fault rather than the cyclist) are exceptionally rare yet about 10-20% of these incidents have resulted in prosecutions and custodial sentences.

So - to repeat my previous comment, there is no evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'.

By contrast spiking incidents are very common, yet successful prosecutions are very rare so there is plenty of evidence that loads of people are spiking drinks and 'getting away with it'.

To end up with the same incident to conviction rates (not that the incidents are equivalent as spiking is always a crime, a death may be a complete accident or the fault of the other party) and using as the baseline the number of convictions of cyclists for causing deaths then you'd need to have nigh on a thousand deaths of pedestrians a year. But in reality the number is about 2.

The current law is clearly effective in dealing with deaths of pedestrians by cyclists, the current law is clearly not effective in dealing spiking.

[Nearly Sane]

Because deaths by pedestrians in collisions with cyclists (which may be complete accidents or may have the pedestrian as the party at fault rather than the cyclist) are exceptionally rare yet about 10-20% of these incidents have resulted in prosecutions and custodial sentences.

So - to repeat my previous comment, there is no evidence that dangerous cyclists are killing people and 'getting away with it'.

By contrast spiking incidents are very common, yet successful prosecutions are very rare so there is plenty of evidence that loads of people are spiking drinks and 'getting away with it'.

To end up with the same incident to conviction rates (not that the incidents are equivalent as spiking is always a crime, a death may be an accident or the fault of the other party) and using as the baseline the number of convictions of cyclists for causing deaths then you'd need to have thousands of deaths of pedestrians a year. But in reality the number is about 2.

The current law is effective in dealing with deaths of pedestrians by cyclists, the current law is clearly not effective in dealing spiking.

And again you were unequivocal about effect to start with merely happy that it was covered.

[ProfessorDavey]

And again you were unequivocal about effect to start with merely happy that it was covered.

I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say NS.

I have said right from the beginning that I see no need to change the law where there is an existing law which is effective at dealing with the problem. If there is no law or if there is a current law that is not effectively then a change in the law may be reasonable.