Genealogy Chat

I believe they were both under 13 years at the time, my apolagise I meant 1903 not 1901

Hi Jonesey, many thanks for your explanation, I can see why this would be the case. Newspaper report was not very forthcoming with details, just enough to make me spend my money, ah well this is about the only place you can get owt for nowt. thanks again, Chrys.

Hi Kay, yes this was in Grimsby in 1901. I had not heard of the indictment office, guess we live and learn! cheers Chrys.

Hi Kath, thank you for that, I see now why he was only tried for the one offence. I have never heard of the indictment office before. once again thanks

I can only assume that the second charge was "Taken into consideration" when the sentence was decided upon.

"When a court is making decisions about sentencing or compensation awards something called ‘offences taken into consideration’ may be a factor if an offender has committed a lot of crimes as well as the one they are on trial for. It is an alternative to the criminal justice system having to charge the same person with a large number of offences. If the offender is prepared to fully admit to the court that they are guilty of these other crimes, the court can then ‘deal with’ the extra offences at the same time. "

Where was this UK or elsewhere?

They still do that these days. It is known as an offence "lying on file". This is probably because the offences would have been linked. Technically a matter which is allowed to lie on file could be re-instituted at a later date although this is very rare and prosecutions are allowed to lie on file when the prosecution feels that there is no need to secure a conviction on that charge - often because of other guilty pleas being offered by the defendant which the prosecution find acceptable.

In your case he either probably pleaded or was found to be guilty on the first charge so there would be no benefit in terms of conviction/punishment for the second charge.

Kath. x

I wonder if anyone will be able to explain why when someone was charged with criminal assult upon two girls in 1903 only one charge was dealt with. The first case was heard and the prisoner was found guilty of the charge. and was sentanced to five years penal servidude. the second charge was ordered to lie in the Indictment office. I dont understand why the prisoner was not tried for the second assult. The newspaper report did not say what the details of the charges were, the only thing it says is both girls were under 13 years of age. One of the girls was my husbands grandmother, many thanks.