Poor chap. His world having disintegrated over a long period, his wife having died in the house, presumably unable to cope with the reality of the loss of his wife delayed reporting her death. The consequence is he is charged with preventing the lawful and decent burial of her body.
What will that achieve? Other than an expensive court case.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18880965
|
>> What will that achieve?
>>
Justice, UK style.
He needs to hire a good lawyer to prove mental illness.
|
...Other than an expensive court case...
If he's convicted he will at least be able to pay the prosecution costs.
Given the death was drugs-related, there must be some suspicion he was trying to cover up that part of it.
No harm in reminding the public that a death must be reported promptly, even if the person reporting it is loaded.
And if he wasn't charged, the CPS is wide open to allegations of 'one rule for the rich, another for the rest of us'.
|
|
Why does there have to be an expensive court case? He can plead guilty, assuming the facts speak for themselves. Can the magistrates deal with it?
|
...Can the magistrates deal with it?...
No, it's an indictable only offence which means it must go to Crown Court.
Maximum penalty is life, which shows how seriously the offence is taken.
This charging advice from the CPS shows Rausing is in deep waters.
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a37
Obstructing a Coroner - Preventing the Burial of a Body
Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.
The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.
The offences of obstructing a coroner and preventing the burial of a body may arise for example, when a person decides to conceal the innocent and unexpected death of a relative or friend or prevent his burial. Such cases inevitably raise sensitive public interest factors which must be carefully considered.
When the evidence supports a charge of involuntary manslaughter, it may be necessary to add a charge of obstructing a coroner or preventing a burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.
Obstructing a coroner may also amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as obstructing a coroner, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice.
|
|
He can pay for the priory, or we can pay to keep him in prison for life, with added hospital costs. Makes sense to me...
|
|
Difficult at the moment to see any public interest in prosecution other than 'pour encourager les autres'. Perhaps more will emerge if/when it comes to court.
|
...He can pay for the priory, or we can pay to keep him in prison for life, with added hospital costs. Makes sense to me...
That assumes he is in some way unwell or mentally unstable, his behaviour may be no more than simply criminal.
Just being a taker of illegal drugs is not of itself enough for the court to consider a medical disposal.
|
>> Why does there have to be an expensive court case? He can plead guilty, assuming
>> the facts speak for themselves.
>>
Brilliant idea. Let us remove the right to defence when "facts speak for themselves".
|
Don't be sarky. Did I need to say admitted facts? That doesn't preclude a plea of mitigation.
Try pleading not guilty to speeding when you've been camera-ed.
|
Has any case ever better illustrated the old truth that money might be able to buy you material things, and security, but it can't buy you happiness?
It's such a shame for all concerned. A woman who died too young, and a man who clearly has a lot of issues to deal with apart from the death of his wife.
I hope he can turn his life around, and come to terms with what has happened.
|
>>Has any case ever better illustrated the old truth that money ... can't buy you happiness?
Seems to have the opposite effect in many cases. I'd be willing to give it a try though.
|
|
Yeah, I'll take the risk.
|
>> I'll take the risk.
So would anyone in their right mind.
But floating on a huge raft of money can have disadvantages too. Newspaper coverage has been sketchy, but an early report said that an eyewatering quantity of cocaine, getting on for two ounces - the sort of quantity normally only held by large-volume retailers - had been found in the Rausings' house. They are also alleged to have been addicted to crack or freebase. Whether they were making it themselves or buying street crack isn't clear. Some reports suggest that they drank a lot and liked opiates too.
Cocaine is a seductive substance. Users are easily tempted by greed and euphoria into taking far more than they need or than is good for them. Like any drug it only works up to a point. Taking more after that is wasteful, and with a stimulant or powerful depressant, harmful as well. For most recreational users, the cost acts as a rationing mechanism. That simply isn't a factor in this case.
|
|
Some vertigo there AC ? :-)
|
Not really. A bit of envy perhaps, but not Schadenfreude.
It's only a 'tragedy' for them and their families, but it's very sad. They don't seem bad people at all.
|
Rausing - John H
