Thread by @BarristerSecret

*** HOME ALONE 2 LIVE-TWEET: THE RULES***

This lecture explores the Christmas classic 'Home Alone 2' through the lens of English and Welsh law.

Contributions and observations are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.

This paper considers, inter alia, how the adventures of Kevin McAllister might have been different had he, his family and his adversaries been subject to the jurisdiction of the law of England and Wales.

Some basic rules so we’re all singing from the same (John Williams) song sherry:

As I am not an American lawyer, nor diligent enough to do the research, we assume that all activity takes place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Also, to instil some discipline, there’s no doli incapax here. We’re assuming Kevin is over the age of criminal responsibility.

(SPOILER: I fear he’s heading to a youth court close to you).

Now as we’re starting on a sequel, while the family are darting around packing for the first few minutes, I’ll catch up those of you who are (inexplicably new) to the franchise:

In Home Alone, Kevin’s family flew to Paris for Christmas and forgot him. Oops.

Remarkably, Kevin’s parents haven’t been prosecuted for child neglect (starting point of 1 year custody as a category 2B offence on the new Child Cruelty Guidelines, in force as of Jan 2019), so they are still at liberty.

And we’re off! Uncle Frank is in the shower! Kevin’s recording him! It’s voyeurism! Strike one! Frank is fully entitled to be livid.

Its the choir scene. Buzz is humiliating Kevin and all the parents are lapping it up. The sickos.

Kevin responds with a s39 battery on his big brother. Strike 2.

Pianist is caught in the crossfire. Issue over causation, but let’s add a s47 ABH to the indictment.

In the most meta part of this thread, Buzz is giving a jury speech to his family to explain himself. This is an obvious breach of the principle of independence of the modern jury system. Jurors should not know the accused. Although...

... HISTORICAL FACT:

Juries in the Middle Ages were originally gathered from locals with direct knowledge of the alleged offence and offender. They were basically amateur Sherlocks, a far cry from their modern day incarnation as independent judges of fact.

Kevin has been locked in the attic. They’ve overslept. It’s all going to shit. Again.

WHEN WILL YOU LEARN, MACALLISTERS?

There are some obvious issues with this airplane scene, reminiscent of the finale in Love Actually where the kid is lucky not to be snipered.

On this theme, may I recommend the wonderful deconstruction of Love Actually by @K_interarma. I now can’t find the link. But it’s ace.

And they’ve left Kevin on the wrong plane.

Section 1(1) Children and Young Persons Act 1933 - child abandonment/neglect. Max sentence 10 years. Second offence in a year. Serious aggravating feature.

Not mitigated I’m afraid by the awesome 90s comedy faint by Negligent Mom.

DARLENE LOVE! IT’S DARLENE LOVE!!!!!!!

I could cry I’m so happy.

🎵The cold wind is blowin' and the streets are getting dark
I'm writing you a letter and I don't know where to start🎵

During the montage, some shopkeeer sold Kevin some fireworks. Kevin is under 18.

Someone is unfamiliar with the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 and the Explosives Act 1875. And that unfamiliarity could cost them 6 months of their life.

Uh oh. The Wet Bandits are back! They’ve escaped from prison!

Escape is a common law offence punishable by up to life imprisonment.

It’s not my favourite offence with the word “escape” though. Oh no. That would be s17 OAPA 1981 - the offence of impeding an escape from a wreck.

They’re in the Plaza! Offences galore!

TREASON!

SEXUAL ASSAULT!

FRAUD!

CORRUPTION!

Yup, it’s the Donald Trump cameo. God bless his chubby little pervert toes.

Kevin is now committing fraud by false representation (s1 Fraud Act 2006) to secure a suite at the Plaza. Frankly, Tim Curry and his band of ninnies only have themselves to blame. Their security protocols were presumably designed by Chris Grayling.

Cedric is pumping a child for money. Kevin gives him gum.

Kevin is now cannon-balling in the hotel pool.

Kevin, as a matter of law, rocks.

QUERY: Are the films that Kevin watches in these movies real? Or are they made especially? I have always wondered. And now I have a captive audience of at least four, I may find out.

And now I know. Thank you!

https://twitter.com/chriscaesar/status/1076576476340912129?s=21

My other half points out that it’s an oddity, to put it mildly, that in this children’s film there’s a scene of “comedic” domestic violence where the man in the film-in-a-film guns down his partner. Problematic, I’d say.

Meanwhile Tim Curry gets shouted at by an inflatable clown

A cheese pizza! That’s what we’re eating in Kevin’s honour.

Not a fun fact, granted. But true.

Uh oh. Curry’s rumbled us. He knows the credit card is stolen.

The Sticky Bandits are conspiring to commit a commercial burglary.

Max sentence 10 years.

That’s right. Even £millions from a children’s toy store on Christmas Eve. If you’re going to commit an acquisitive offence, this is the one. On an early guilty plea, that’s 6.66 yrs.

Let me be clear, for any children watching: I am *not* suggesting you should actually go and commit a commercial burglary. Just that it’s better, for you, than a domestic burglary (14 years) or robbery (life).

Glad that’s clear.

THE BANDITS ARE CHASING KEVIN!

This is an attempt to abduct a child, contrary to s1 Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

In this light, I’d say that his actions in spilling beads over the pavement to cause them to slip amount to reasonable, if unorthodox, self defence.

Now Tim Curry and Cedric are chasing Kevin! And the woman who married Cousin It in the Addams Family. We’re seconds away from best scene in movie history...

I can’t type for laughing.

Every damn time.

And the piece de resistance:

And now the Wet Bandits have Kevin! It’s a completed offence! Section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984. Max sentence 7 years.

Kevin just pinched a lady’s bottom to create a diversion. Technically a battery, possibly sexual assault, but again I’d say he has a defence. Just.

Joe Pesci and Marv are openly discussing killing Kevin. This is veering towards conspiracy to murder territory. Which all seems so unnecessary. They could have just ignored him and got on with their burglary. I bet they’ll look back and regret this.

An important point from an MP. I hope Tim Curry is paying attention:

https://twitter.com/karenpbuckmp/status/1076579541408194570?s=21

It’s Bird Lady! I proper love Bird Lady, even though she would obviously be far more covered in poop than she appears to be.

We *could* prosecute her though. Topically, we could use the Vagrancy Act 1824, which Jeremy Corbyn today pledged to abolish:

https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1076411612360306691?s=21

How did Bird Lady and Kevin sneak into the concert hall? Is this room where they store the instruments Bird Lady’s home? How has nobody noticed? And what happened to the man who broke her heart? Did she kill him and feed him to her birds? There’s a subtext here, I tells ya.

Bird Lady is telling Kevin that a good deed erases a bad deed. And that good deeds are worth double on Christmas.

This, while a lovely sentiment, is incorrect as a statement of either criminal liability or basic principles of sentencing.

“You can mess with a lot of things. You can’t mess with kids on Christmas.”

Kevin is right. However.

This is where, legally, I think he starts to have trouble.

This right now - while he knows the Bandits are inside the shop - is when he should call the police. But he doesn’t

“Operation Ho Ho Ho”, while undeniably mechanically and architecturally impressive, would be admissible as a confession document in a court of law. It shows a degree of premeditation that goes some way beyond self-defence or defence of property. It’s bloodthirsty vigilantism.

Kevin sets off the shop alarm by throwing a brick through the window. In the absence of a defence of necessity, there being other options open to Kevin - namely calling the police - I can’t see how we avoid a charge of criminal damage.

Now. A lot of violence is about to go down. I won’t particularise it due to space, but taken as a whole, it is clear that Kevin *at least* causes and intends to cause really serious harm (s18 Offences Against the Person Act).

Like right now he’s throwing BRICKS AT THEIR HEADS.

The overarching issue for this whole final third is whether Kevin can be said to be acting in lawful self-defence.

Legally, this is quite a fun* area.

(*Fun in the legal sense, rather than the sense of fun.)

For a start, we have the question of whether Kevin is a “householder”. Why does this matter?

Because Chris Grayling, King of The Drones, tried to change the law to allow householders to use more violence against intruders.

I say “tried” because, unsurprisingly, he messed it up.

Grayling told the country that the age-old law of self defence was changing.

Historically, the test has been:

1) was it necessary to use force in the circumstances as the person believed them to be?

2) in that context, was the force objectively reasonable?

Grayling said...

“Get rid of that pesky test of reasonableness”. He wanted to make it so that the test would be whether the force was “grossly disproportionate”, *not* a question of reasonableness.

To cut a long story short, he botched the legislation. The test is still “reasonableness.” Lolz.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand.

I fear Kevin falls at the first hurdle. None of this violence is necessary. Unlike the first film where they invade *his* home, Kev has lured them to a derelict building rigged up to torture them.

Even if an argument could be made that the luring and the use of *some* force was necessary given their murderous intent, the force used - the staples in the nads, electrocution, burning, paint in the eyes, bollard in the face - falls somewhere short of reasonable.

We now have an arson with intent to endanger life (setting fire to the kerosene-soaked ropes he’s lured the Bandits onto). At sentence, the court is going to be drowning in psychiatric reports. Assuming they can find enough experts willing to work on legal aid rates.

The Bandits try to shoot Bird Lady! Attempted murder! She sets the birds on them! *That*, K-Dog, is how you do reasonable self-defence.

Meanwhile Kevin illegally plays with some fireworks.

The Bandits have been arrested and Marv is spilling the beans. BUT - the police haven’t cautioned him! These confessions are getting excluded from evidence under s78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

*IN MY BEST CONDESCENDING COURT VOICE* This stuff is basic, officer.

Negligent Mom, meanwhile, is pounding the streets of New York looking for Kevin. He’s at the big Christmas Tree, where John Williams’ Somewhere In My Memory soars in the background.

Anybody who doesn’t smile with genuine happiness when Kevin sees his mother is dead inside.

Christmas Day! Mr Duncan has given the whole family free presents! Maybe they’ll get to open a couple before Social Services kick the door in.

Buzz’s “Enough of this gooey sh... show of emotion” is as funny now as when I was 11. Which is VERY funny indeed.

Meanwhile, Kevin takes a turtle dove to Bird Lady. He’s quite a sweet kid when he wants to be. “Psychopathic”, as I believe the specialists will diagnose him.

Kevin spent $967 on room service. While Mr McCallister is angry, he has been a victim of credit card fraud, and (I’ll be corrected by any civil practitioners if this wrong) there’s no way he’s liable for that bill. If anything it should be docked from Tim Curry’s wages.

As the closing credits roll, let’s look at the rolling total when it comes to sentence:

For conspiracy to murder a child, both Joe Pesci and Marv are looking at best at life with a min 30 yrs, maybe a whole life term. Abduction of a child with sadistic intent.

For two counts of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm with intent, Kevin, with the heavy mitigation of youth and the fact that he was, after all, being threatened by madmen, will nevertheless be found dangerous. Extended sentence of detention of 4 years plus 4.

Negligent Mom and Skinflint Dad are both getting 8 months’ immediate custody for child neglect. Given that their child could have been brutally killed, this is not a bad result for their barrister.

That’s it! It’s the end of the film!

That went surprisingly quickly. Thank you to all of you for your support/expressions of concern. I love you all deeply.

Have the merriest of Christmases, one and all xxx