postal rule and obligation to open letters addressed to a court

Carawaystick

The Connacht Tribune this week reports about a letter addressed to Tuam courthouse written in blood.
The judge was reported as instructing courts service staff not to open such letters in future.

Is it legal for the courts service to ignore post addressed to them?

a) on suspicion that they are addressed in blood*
b) if they are addressed in blood



*I'd be reasonably certain it would be possible to create an ink to appear like it was dried blood - some test would be needed for court service staff to know if it was actual blood or not.

Claw Hammer

There is no legal obligation on anybody to open a letter addressed to themselves. Certain consequences may follow if it is found that the person received the letter such as that the person may be deemed to have notice of the contents. It happens every day of the week in court that the guards provide evidence that a summons was posted to someone and it is then presumed that they received it and were aware of the contents.

Little CuChulainn

Addressing something in blood sounds like it would fall under Section 6(2) of the Non-Fatal Offences Act

A person who—

(a) sprays, pours or puts onto another blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood, or

(b) threatens to spray, pour or put onto another blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood,

with the intention of or where there is a likelihood of causing that other to believe that he or she may become infected with disease as a result of the action caused or threatened shall be guilty of an offence.

Kings Inns or bust

OP, how does the postal rule come into play here - I'm pretty sure that anarchic piece of legal trivia is confined to the Contract sphere, or at least I bloody (see what I did there?) hope so.

Pro Hoc Vice

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Addressing something in blood sounds like it would fall under Section 6(2) of the Non-Fatal Offences Act

My reading of the above section would not cover writing in blood for two reasons. The section requires that the blood be put on a person and also that "intention of or where there is a likelihood of causing that other to believe that he or she may become infected with disease as a result" by the time the letter is put in a post box it would be dry and of no risk.

Pro Hoc Vice

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is no legal obligation on anybody to open a letter addressed to themselves. Certain consequences may follow if it is found that the person received the letter such as that the person may be deemed to have notice of the contents. It happens every day of the week in court that the guards provide evidence that a summons was posted to someone and it is then presumed that they received it and were aware of the contents.

I'm not sure that summons are sent by ordinary post. FPN yes but not so sure a summons, I believe they are delivered by AGS.

punisher5112

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

My reading of the above section would not cover writing in blood for two reasons. The section requires that the blood be put on a person and also that "intention of or where there is a likelihood of causing that other to believe that he or she may become infected with disease as a result" by the time the letter is put in a post box it would be dry and of no risk.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the one touching or opening such filth.

Some absolute nutters out there.

Of course there is a risk if the person is diseased or infectious.

gctest50

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

........by the time the letter is put in a post box it would be dry and of no risk.

Hepatitis B will happily live for a week

http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/hbv/hbvfaq.htm#treatment
How long does HBV survive outside the body?

HBV can survive outside the body at least 7 days and still be capable of causing infection.


Any blood spills — including dried blood, which can still be infectious

Pro Hoc Vice

gctest50 wrote: »

Hepatitis B will happily live for a week

I stand corrected the section may then apply.

Kings Inns or bust

We're moving away for the OP here but I'm very dubious 6(2) could apply.

First of all it's designed in reference to Syringe attacks, the magic etc. is there of course. Parking that for a moment aren't prosecutions under these provisions extremely rare?

Secondly and most fatally IMHO is there must be a direct causal link between the person with the 'blood' and it getting on someone. There simply is not here. I think people are reading into:

...where there is a likelihood of causing that other to believe...

The likelihood mentioned is in relation to the belief of disease element not the likelihood of it getting on someone.

Pro Hoc Vice

54.—(1) If any person not in the employment of the Postmaster-General wilfully and maliciously, with intent to injure any other person, either opens or causes to be opened any letter which ought to have been delivered to that other person, or does any act or thing whereby the due delivery of the letter to that other person is prevented or impeded, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1908/act/48/enacted/en/print.html

Repealed in 1983

"84.—(1) A person who—

(a) opens or attempts to open a postal packet addressed to another person or delays or detains any such postal packet or does anything to prevent its due delivery or authorises, suffers or permits another person (who is not the person to whom the postal packet is addressed) to do so, or

(b) discloses the existence or contents of any such postal packet, or

(c) uses for any purpose any information obtained from any such postal packet, or

(d) tampers with any such postal packet,

without the agreement of the person to whom the postal packet is addressed shall be guilty of an offence."

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1983/act/24/enacted/en/print#sec84

Not sure if that section amended, think the section is still the same.

Pro Hoc Vice

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

We're moving away for the OP here but I'm very dubious 6(2) could apply.

First of all it's designed in reference to Syringe attacks, the magic etc. is there of course. Parking that for a moment aren't prosecutions under these provisions extremely rare?

Secondly and most fatally IMHO is there must be a direct causal link between the person with the 'blood' and it getting on someone. There simply is not here. I think people are reading into:

...where there is a likelihood of causing that other to believe...

The likelihood mentioned is in relation to the belief of disease element not the likelihood of it getting on someone.

One of the test is the subjective test of the person who handles the post. Going on the CDC information if I pick up a letter written in blood would that satisfy the test. While I accept it would be a very difficult case to bring home it would not be beyond the realms of possibility.

Kings Inns or bust

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

One of the test is the subjective test of the person who handles the post. Going on the CDC information if I pick up a letter written in blood would that satisfy the test. While I accept it would be a very difficult case to bring home it would not be beyond the realms of possibility.

I have to disagree the actus reus is made out here:

(a) sprays, pours or puts onto another blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood, or

(b) threatens to spray, pour or put onto another blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood,

neither (a) or (b) is satisfied.

Pro Hoc Vice

While a different jurisdiction and not blood but the white powder was in no way toxic and a very different law it led to time. http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/ohio-man-gets-three-years-in-federal-prison-for-sending-white-powder-letter-to-north-texas.html/

Pro Hoc Vice

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I have to disagree the actus reus is made out here:

(a) sprays, pours or puts onto another blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood, or

(b) threatens to spray, pour or put onto another blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood,

neither (a) or (b) is satisfied.

If a person touches the letter can you say for certain no blood transfers? Would that satisfy put? Is the intention of the act satisfied? No one can say for certain without a prosecution. Would I think a prosecution would succeed, well I would doubt it. But could I advice a person who sent such a letter that he can be safe in the knowledge that no prosecution would be mounted? No I can not say so.

Kings Inns or bust

I think, and I take your point that we won't know without a prosecution, that put requires intention putting it on a letter is merely recklessness. Given the liberal use of the word reckless in the rest of the Act I think it's a very dubious proposition.

Interesting though to my tiny mind! :pac:

Pro Hoc Vice

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I think, and I take your point that we won't know without a prosecution, that put requires intention putting it on a letter is merely recklessness. Given the liberal use of the word reckless in the rest of the Act I think it's a very dubious proposition.

Interesting though to my tiny mind! :pac:

Will I agree with you your question may be answered by "(3) A person who in committing or attempting to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2)—

(a) injures a third person with a syringe by piercing his or her skin, or

(b) sprays, pours or puts onto a third person blood or any fluid or substance resembling blood,

resulting in the third person believing that he or she may become infected with disease as a result of the injury or action caused shall be guilty of an offence."

I would have bet money a few years ago that AGS have power to handcuff an arrested person as a matter of routine would be lawful, well the SC says differently now.

Kings Inns or bust

In a rare slip of my usual proudly exhibited laziness I actually considered 6(3) and believe the same problem applies - point well taken though that it's arguable both ways.

Glass fused light

But even if delivered has the court any obligation to do anything with the letter is there a legal obligation to open or even store the letter?

Pro Hoc Vice

Glass fused light wrote: »

But even if delivered has the court any obligation to do anything with the letter is there a legal obligation to open or even store the letter?

I don't think they do under any postal act. But an issue could arise with a matter where a letter was received. But in any event it might only arise where a matter is criminal and failure to attend to a summons or charge sheet would more than likely still be an issue even if a letter written.

Glass fused light

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I don't think they do under any postal act. But an issue could arise with a matter where a letter was received. But in any event it might only arise where a matter is criminal and failure to attend to a summons or charge sheet would more than likely still be an issue even if a letter written.

Thanks