This serious financial harm looks a bit vague
"181 Threatening communications offence
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person sends a message (see section 182),
(b) the message conveys a threat of death or serious harm, and
(c) at the time of sending it, the person—
(i) intended an individual encountering the message to fear that the
threat would be carried out (whether or not by the person sending the
message), or
(ii) was reckless as to whether an individual encountering the message
would fear that the threat would be carried out (whether or not by the
person sending the message).
(2) “Serious harm” means—
(a) serious injury amounting to grievous bodily harm within the meaning of the
Offences against the Person Act 1861,
(b) rape,
(c) assault by penetration within the meaning of section 2 of the Sexual Offences
Act 2003, or
(d) serious financial loss"
If a solicitor by email sends an email to someone for a client where the client is owed a lot of money so the lying cheating failure to pay person on the other side will suffer financial loss if they do what they should do, does the lawyer breach s.181? Obviously the lawyer DOES want the potential defendant to believe the threat - to be sued for money they owe - to be carried out.
1
4
Very poor drafting.
2
4
What fvcking moron drafted that? Great spot lydders
4
4
How is it a financial loss to be asked to pay one's debts?
If there's no reasonably grounds for three demand and fear is experienced then it might be an offence to send the email.
0
4
Also you'd interpret serious harm in the context of it death, rape or gbh when construing financial loss to resolve any doubt.
0
3
Argghhhh.
No reasonable grounds for the demand*
3
3
(3)In proceedings for an offence under this section relating to a threat of serious financial loss, it is a defence for the person to show that—
(a)the threat was used to reinforce a reasonable demand, and
(b)the person reasonably believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
0
3
Alan partridge shrug gif
1
4
Yes as the lawyers have shown on this thread, there is absolutely no risk of the issue OP is worried about
For the reasons pointed out
Worrying lack of accuracy from other lawyers when reviewing the law
1
5
Heh at thinking that discharging a debt amounts to financial loss. Great lawyering guys.
If you instructed a lawyer who thought that sort of thing, it probably would ultimately result in serious financial loss tbh.
2
3
If only the drafting could have been as competent as this word salad:
‘If a solicitor by email sends an email to someone for a client where the client is owed a lot of money so the lying cheating failure to pay person on the other side will suffer financial loss if they do what they should do,’
1
2
To be fair spurius the drafters obviously also thought it was a risk hence subsection three
Which does exist tho
0
2
Sometimes it bothers me that I'm not a millionaire
0
2
Only sometimes? Words of advice too get it that infrequent please?
0
2
I hadn't got as far as subsection 3 so thanks for that. Even so I never like these fairly vague statues - reasonable grounds.
0
2
S181 Online Safety Act 2023
Lydia 07 Apr 24 15:33
This serious financial harm looks a bit vague
If a solicitor by email sends an email to someone for a client where the client is owed a lot of money so the lying cheating failure to pay person on the other side will suffer financial loss if they do what they should do, does the lawyer breach s.181? Obviously the lawyer DOES want the potential defendant to believe the threat - to be sued for money they owe - to be carried out.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
no
the serious financial harm doesn't come out of the letter it comes out of the running up big debts
Join the discussion