The nurse who took the prank call committed suicide

Well according to Channel 4 News, the victim of the prank has to give written permission. It's the same with TV pranks, if permission isn't given the face must be blanked out.

But if I hadn't been selling home-brew, which I haven't because it's hard enough keeping up with me, it must be drivel. How can there be a witness to something that hadn't occurred?

It is a long way from calling up a hospital though.

Another difference of great significance fm is that Gus said he would prefer to be thrown in the Seine with a stone round his neck than father a child and Chas was prodding away like a billy goat.

Thumbing that down is an abuse of A2K.

That was off the top of my head Spendi, but people make false allegations all the time, just look at what happened to Dave Jones.

So? their feet was never on UK soil nor are they UK citizens.

I could go onto a German base website and post holocaust denial nonsense and by so doing breaked German laws and the German government could go pound sand.

Don't be silly Bill.

They broke UK law I'm sure.

Wasting police time. Conduct prejudicial. Breach of the peace. Impersonating an officer. Conspiracy to commit an offence. Deception. Stealing electricity in the furtherance of monetary gain.

It wouldn't be the German government but the prosecution of that district where the webside is hosted - we've got separation of powers here.

Well, and obviously the US-law not so different, too: see for instance Assange ...

So what as they are not likely subject to UK laws anymore then I am subject to German laws concerning denailling the holocaust even if I do so on a German base website.

There was a case not so long ago of a gentleman who wrote books on the subject of the holocaust not happening and the having them shipped into countries such as Germany where there are laws against such books.

They could not touch him as long as he was in the US but when he was visiting another EU country to give some speech he was arrested under an EU warrant.

Did not follow the case farther.

Those DJs may have broken additionally Australian law, namely the commercial radio code of practice (drawn up by the industry) and the privacy code of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

The station may also have breached Australian telecommunications laws which prohibit the secret recording of conversations, as well as defamation law.

Anything is possible however from the news stories the radio station management and their lawyers review and ok the broadcast ahead of time.

Now as far as UK law applying see an example below.....such cases get very complex and are not likely to be worth the efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben#2008_extradition_attempt

2008 extradition attemptIn 2008, the German federal authorities attempted unsuccessfully to extradite Töben from the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant for allegedly publishing "antisemitic and / or revisionist" material on his website, which he writes from his home in Australia, and is a crime that does not exist in Britain. The European Arrest Warrant had three boxes ticked: racism, xenophobia and cybercrime, which did not fulfill British legal requirements and so the EAW was judged to be deficient.[22] On 1 October 2008, Töben was detained at Heathrow Airport while flying from the United States to Dubai.[3] In Westminster Magistrates' Court the next day, he objected to the terms of the warrant, claiming that he was protected by the terms of the Schengen agreement and said that his historical and political views had motivated the German authorities' decision to issue the warrant. He instructed Kevin Lowry-Mullins to represent him in the Extradition proceedings issued by the German Government.

The arrest warrant was dismissed by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 29 October 2008, with the judge stating that the details it contained were "sparse". According to Ben Watson, Töben's barrister instructed by extradition solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins, the court was unable to decide whether the warrant was valid because it did not specify whether any part of the crime took part in the United Kingdom and there was not sufficient information about the nature of Töben's alleged crime.[23] The warrant spoke of "worldwide Internet publications" but for it to be valid, it would have been necessary for the German authorities to have shown that the offence not only took place in Germany but that it did not take place in the United Kingdom.[24] Töben was offered bail, pending an appeal by the German prosecuting authorities to the High Court. Strict conditions were set, including limitations on Töben's communication and travel and he was able to raise the £100,000 surety required - 3 individuals offered to post bail, but an Executive Order released him from prison.[25]

The German authorities later withdrew their appeal, after the Crown Prosecution Service advised them that in the light of further information they had provided about the location of the alleged offence, it would not have been possible to satisfy the courts that the offence was extraditable. This is because under common law it is not an offence to express an opinion, as is the case in countries where Holocaust denial is criminalized.[26] The German authorities later stated their intention to attempt to extradite Töben from other jurisdictions in the future.[27]

The case caused some controversy in the United Kingdom, with the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne expressing concerns that the extradition would amount to an infringement on the freedom of speech.[28] Also British historian Geoffrey Alderman criticised Töben's arrest and the tendency "to enforce particular interpretations of history under the guise of combating racism and xenophobia". According to Alderman, "the task of the historian is to investigate, confront, challenge and, if necessary, correct society's collective memory. In this process, the state ought to have no role whatever, none at all. Certainly not in the UK, which delights in presenting itself as a bastion of academic freedom."[29]

Seems, you've missed something:
- no German law is involved but only English law,
- the UK authorities didn't issue an EU-warrant (which would be nonsense, since Australia isn't an EU-country).


Your responses intensify my impression that you're neither an expert nor have any good ideas about the English and Australian law and/or the relationship between those two legal systems.
But you're certainly good in copying/pasting some wiki articles!

I am not missing anything as the point is charging someone who is not a citizen of your country and or did the 'crime' while not on your soil in person mean that the likelihood of that person being extradite by in this case the country they are a citizen of is small to tiny.

The New South Wales state Surveillance Devices Act prohibits the broadcast of recorded private conversations without participants’ permission, with violations punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 55,000 Australian dollars.

State police have said that they are in contact with their London counterparts and ready to assist them in any British investigation.

Interesting but for most crimes there have to be some criminal intend at least in the US and if those actions was clear by the station lawyers that might be a hard road to climb.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+LawI

ntentCriminal intent must be formed before the act, and it must unite with the act. It need not exist for any given length of time before the act; the intent and the act can be as instantaneous as simultaneous or successive thoughts.

A jury may be permitted to infer criminal intent from facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that it existed. For example, the intent to commit Burglary may be inferred from the accused's possession of tools for picking locks.

Criminal intent may also be presumed from the commission of the act. That is, the prosecution may rely on the presumption that a person intends the Natural and Probable Consequences of his or her voluntary acts. For example, the intent to commit murder may be demonstrated by the particular voluntary movement that caused the death, such as the pointing and shooting of a firearm. A defendant may rebut this presumption by introducing evidence showing a lack of criminal intent. In the preceding example, if the murder defendant reasonably believed that the firearm was actually a toy, evidence showing that belief might rebut the presumption that death was intended.

Proof of general criminal intent is required for the conviction of most crimes. The intent element is usually fulfilled if the defendant was generally aware that he or she was very likely committing a crime. This means that the prosecution need not prove that the defendant was aware of all of the elements constituting the crime. For example, in a prosecution for the possession of more than a certain amount of a controlled substance, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the precise quantity. Other examples of general-intent crimes are Battery, rape, Kidnapping, and False Imprisonment.

Some crimes require a Specific Intent. Where specific intent is an element of a crime, it must be proved by the prosecution as an independent fact. For example, Robbery is the taking of property from another's presence by force or threat of force. The intent element is fulfilled only by evidence showing that the defendant specifically intended to steal the property. Unlike general intent, specific intent may not be inferred from the commission of the unlawful act. Examples of specific-intent crimes are solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, first-degree premeditated murder, assault, Larceny, robbery, burglary, forgery, false pretense, and Embezzlement.

Most criminal laws require that the specified crime be committed with knowledge of the act's criminality and with criminal intent. However, some statutes make an act criminal regardless of intent. When a statute is silent as to intent, knowledge of criminality and criminal intent need not be proved. Such statutes are called Strict Liability laws. Examples are laws forbidding the sale of alcohol to minors, and Statutory Rape laws.

The doctrine of transferred intent is another nuance of criminal intent. Transferred intent occurs where one intends the harm that is actually caused, but the injury occurs to a different victim or object. To illustrate, the law allows prosecution where the defendant intends to burn one house but actually burns another instead. The concept of transferred intent applies to Homicide, battery, and Arson.

Felony-murder statutes evince a special brand of transferred intent. Under a felony-murder statute, any death caused in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a predicate felony is murder. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim. For example, a death resulting from arson will give rise to a murder charge even though the defendant intentionally set the structure on fire without intending to kill a human being. Furthermore, the underlying crime need not have been the direct cause of the death. In the arson example, the victim need not die of burns; a fatal heart attack will trigger a charge of felony murder. In most jurisdictions, a death resulting from the perpetration of certain felonies will constitute first-degree murder. Such felonies usually include arson, robbery, burglary, rape, and kidnapping.

Did Bradley Manning intend to do what he has been charged with?

Mr. Manning was given a long legal document explaining his duties when if come to handling classified materials and then needed to sign a statement that he understood the document.

Somehow I question if he did not know as a result that sending G bytes of classified informations to Wikileaks were both breaking the law and his oath to his country.

I haven't heard anything that the US (or the judiciary there) is involved here.

But now Australia's commercial radio regulator is investigating the prank call ...