http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html

This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime of
her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.

Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
guilty of anything?

On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>
> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime of
> her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>
> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
> guilty of anything?

No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the fact".

Peter

On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>
>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
>> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>
>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
>> guilty of anything?
>
> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the fact".
>

Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the weapon
the husband used or allowing him to hide.

Max the Wog IDIOT wrote:
=====================
>
> >> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
> >>
> >> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
> >> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
> >>
> >> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
> >> guilty of anything?
> >
> > No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the fact".
> >
> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the weapon
> the husband used or allowing him to hide.
>

** For long time, a wife could not be compelled to give testimony that would put her husband in jail.
So she was not required to tell the police about his crime.

Putting a wife in a such a double bind was considered inhuman.
Not that a POS like you would care.

....... Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html

> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime of
> her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.

In fact it says nothing like that.

> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
> guilty of anything?

Nope, it is ONLY talking about an accessory AFTER THE CRIME
and only with regard to receiving etc.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>
>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
>>> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>
>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
>>> guilty of anything?
>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the fact".
>>
>
> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the weapon
> the husband used

It doesnt say that either.

> or allowing him to hide.

Or that.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>
>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
>>>> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the
>>> fact".
>>>
>>
>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the weapon
>> the husband used
>
> It doesnt say that either.
>
>> or allowing him to hide.
>
> Or that.

Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:23:31 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
>>>>> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the
>>>> fact".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>> weapon the husband used
>>
>> It doesnt say that either.
>>
>>> or allowing him to hide.
>>
>> Or that.
>
> Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
> accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
> his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
> that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
> bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.

Interesting in some ways that it doesn't include the kids or his parents.

On 4/07/2022 5:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>
>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
>>>> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>>  No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the fact".
>>>
>>
>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>> weapon the husband used
>
> It doesnt say that either.
>

An accessory after the fact would be any part in assisting the offender
after the actual crime as occurred.

>> or allowing him to hide.
>
> Or that.

Yes it does.

What part of:

"assisting him in order to enable him to escape punishment"

do you not understand?

On 04-July-22 3:11 pm, Max wrote:
> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>
>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
>>> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>
>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>> found guilty of anything?
>>
>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the fact".
>>
>
> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the weapon
> the husband used or allowing him to hide.
>

This section is not going to protect a wife from prosecution from things
what would be unlawful even in the absence of being an accessory after
the fact.

For example, she cannot kill any police who come looking for her husband.

In the context of hiding a firearm, that would mean she has custody of
it, which would require a relevant firearms licence, or be an offence.

Sylvia.

On 4/07/2022 5:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:23:31 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a
>>>>>> crime of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>>>>  No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the
>>>>> fact".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>>> weapon the husband used
>>>
>>> It doesnt say that either.
>>>
>>>> or allowing him to hide.
>>>
>>> Or that.
>>
>> Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
>> accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
>> his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
>> that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
>> bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.
>
> Interesting in some ways that it doesn't include the kids or his parents.

There was an elderly couple in Perth whose son stored cannibis in their
house and they were convicted of drug charges.

They would have had their house seized but the DPP let them live in
their house for as long as they want.

Should the DPP have done that?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-11-18/elderly-drug-traffickers-permitted-to-live-at-home/743516

Sylvia Else wrote:
=============
>
> In the context of hiding a firearm, that would mean she has custody of
> it,

** Not if she throws it in a river.

..... Phil

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:00:27 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 4/07/2022 5:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>
>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime
>>>>> of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the
>>>> fact".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>> weapon the husband used
>> It doesnt say that either.

> An accessory after the fact would be any part in assisting the offender
> after the actual crime as occurred.

And that section explicitly does not cover 'any part in assisting
the offender after the actual crime as occurred.'

>>> or allowing him to hide.

>> Or that.

> Yes it does.

No it does not.

> What part of:

> "assisting him in order to enable him to escape punishment"

> do you not understand?

It is obvious that you don't understand any part of

(2) A married woman does not become an accessory after the fact to a
crime of which her husband is guilty, by receiving or assisting him in
order to enable him to escape punishment; nor by receiving or assisting,
in her husband's presence and by his authority, another person who is
guilty of a crime in the commission of which her husband has taken part,
in order to enable that other person to escape punishment; nor does a
husband become accessory after the fact to a crime of which his wife is
guilty by receiving or assisting her in order to enable her to escape
punishment.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:29:44 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 4/07/2022 5:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:23:31 +1000, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a
>>>>>>> crime of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>>>>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the
>>>>>> fact".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>>>> weapon the husband used
>>>>
>>>> It doesnt say that either.
>>>>
>>>>> or allowing him to hide.
>>>>
>>>> Or that.
>>>
>>> Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
>>> accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
>>> his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
>>> that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
>>> bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.
>> Interesting in some ways that it doesn't include the kids or his
>> parents.
>
> There was an elderly couple in Perth whose son stored cannibis in their
> house and they were convicted of drug charges.

Perth isn't in Tasmania, fuckwit.

> They would have had their house seized but the DPP let them live in
> their house for as long as they want.

> Should the DPP have done that?

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-11-18/elderly-drug-traffickers-permitted-to-live-at-home/743516

On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:34:04 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

>http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>
>This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime of
>her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>
>Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
>guilty of anything?
I thought you were referring to a life-size pink silicone blow-up
Swedish sex doll.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 07:24:54 +1000, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:34:04 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>
>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime of
>> her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>
>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
>> guilty of anything?
> I thought you were referring to a life-size pink silicone blow-up
> Swedish sex doll.

No surprises there. How is yours going ?

On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 08:03:13 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 07:24:54 +1000, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:34:04 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>
>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a crime of
>>> her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>
>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be found
>>> guilty of anything?
>> I thought you were referring to a life-size pink silicone blow-up
>> Swedish sex doll.
>
>No surprises there. How is yours going ?

Fine. I disconnected the vocal facility.
Don't you just curse the Neanderthal who taught women to talk?

On 4/07/2022 7:55 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:29:44 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 4/07/2022 5:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:23:31 +1000, Rod Speed
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a
>>>>>>>> crime of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>>>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>>>>>>  No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the
>>>>>>> fact".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>>>>> weapon the husband used
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesnt say that either.
>>>>>
>>>>>> or allowing him to hide.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or that.
>>>>
>>>> Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
>>>> accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
>>>> his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
>>>> that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
>>>> bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.
>>>  Interesting in some ways that it doesn't include the kids or his
>>> parents.
>>
>> There was an elderly couple in Perth whose son stored cannibis in
>> their house and they were convicted of drug charges.
>
> Perth isn't in Tasmania, fuckwit.
>
>> They would have had their house seized but the DPP let them live in
>> their house for as long as they want.
>
>> Should the DPP have done that?
>
> Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>

It shows that the law in an Australian jurisdiction will protect parents
who may be involved in their children's crimes.

>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-11-18/elderly-drug-traffickers-permitted-to-live-at-home/743516
>>

On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 17:37:50 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 4/07/2022 7:55 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:29:44 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/07/2022 5:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:23:31 +1000, Rod Speed
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a
>>>>>>>>> crime of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not be
>>>>>>>>> found guilty of anything?
>>>>>>>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after the
>>>>>>>> fact".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>>>>>> weapon the husband used
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesnt say that either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or allowing him to hide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
>>>>> accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
>>>>> his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
>>>>> that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
>>>>> bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.
>>>> Interesting in some ways that it doesn't include the kids or his
>>>> parents.
>>>
>>> There was an elderly couple in Perth whose son stored cannibis in
>>> their house and they were convicted of drug charges.
>> Perth isn't in Tasmania, fuckwit.
>>
>>> They would have had their house seized but the DPP let them live in
>>> their house for as long as they want.
>>
>>> Should the DPP have done that?

>> Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

> It shows that the law in an Australian jurisdiction will protect parents
> who may be involved in their children's crimes.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-11-18/elderly-drug-traffickers-permitted-to-live-at-home/743516

On 5/07/2022 7:48 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 17:37:50 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>
>> On 4/07/2022 7:55 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:29:44 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/07/2022 5:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:23:31 +1000, Rod Speed
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed
>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a
>>>>>>>>>> crime of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not
>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of anything?
>>>>>>>>>  No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after
>>>>>>>>> the fact".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>>>>>>> weapon the husband used
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesnt say that either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or allowing him to hide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
>>>>>> accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
>>>>>> his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
>>>>>> that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
>>>>>> bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.
>>>>>  Interesting in some ways that it doesn't include the kids or his
>>>>> parents.
>>>>
>>>> There was an elderly couple in Perth whose son stored cannibis in
>>>> their house and they were convicted of drug charges.
>>>  Perth isn't in Tasmania, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> They would have had their house seized but the DPP let them live in
>>>> their house for as long as they want.
>>>
>>>> Should the DPP have done that?
>
>>>  Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>
>> It shows that the law in an Australian jurisdiction will protect
>> parents who may be involved in their children's crimes.
>
> Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>

I started the thread so I decide what is relevant.

>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-11-18/elderly-drug-traffickers-permitted-to-live-at-home/743516
>>>>

Some Fuckwit calling itself Max wrote:

------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
> >
> I started the thread so I decide what is relevant.
>

** NO YOU FUCKING DON'T !!!!!!
YOU get to decide nothing!!

Question posters ought to READ and consider replies, then bugger off.

....... Phil

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 10:24:32 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

> On 5/07/2022 7:48 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2022 17:37:50 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/07/2022 7:55 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 19:29:44 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/07/2022 5:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:23:31 +1000, Rod Speed
>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:06:45 +1000, Rod Speed
>>>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:11:29 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:42 pm, Pete wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/07/2022 2:34 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cc192494/s6.html
>>>>>>>>>>> This section says that if a wife of a man is an accessory to a
>>>>>>>>>>> crime of her husband, she will not be guilty of a crime.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does that mean a wife can help her husband in a crime and not
>>>>>>>>>>> be found guilty of anything?
>>>>>>>>>> No, because the legislation is referring to "accessory after
>>>>>>>>>> the fact".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still seems bad that the wife can get away with maybe hiding the
>>>>>>>>> weapon the husband used
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesnt say that either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or allowing him to hide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its clearly done like that so she can't be charged with being an
>>>>>>> accessory after the fact just because she let the criminal and/or
>>>>>>> his mates also involved in the crime, into the house knowing
>>>>>>> that they did the crime because they said that or bring the big
>>>>>>> bag of loot or blood stained clothes with them etc.
>>>>>> Interesting in some ways that it doesn't include the kids or his
>>>>>> parents.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was an elderly couple in Perth whose son stored cannibis in
>>>>> their house and they were convicted of drug charges.
>>>> Perth isn't in Tasmania, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> They would have had their house seized but the DPP let them live in
>>>>> their house for as long as they want.
>>>>
>>>>> Should the DPP have done that?
>>
>>>> Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>>
>>> It shows that the law in an Australian jurisdiction will protect
>>> parents who may be involved in their children's crimes.
>> Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

> I started the thread

Yep.

> so I decide what is relevant.

Nope, dope.

>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-11-18/elderly-drug-traffickers-permitted-to-live-at-home/743516

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Some Fuckwit calling itself Max wrote

>> > Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>> >
>> I started the thread so I decide what is relevant.
> >
>
> ** NO YOU FUCKING DON'T !!!!!!
> YOU get to decide nothing!!
>
> Question posters ought to READ and consider replies, then bugger off.

Off is sick of getting buggered by the dickless.