*** TAKEN: THE LEGAL LIVE-TWEET - THE RULES***
This lecture explores the cinematic classic 'Taken’ 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 lecture explores the cinematic classic 'Taken’ 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 Bryan Mills might have been different had he and his adversaries been subject to the jurisdiction of the law of England & Wales.
(For the avoidance of doubt, this is Bryan Mills the lead in Taken, not Brian Mills the modestly-accomplished Port Vale footballer-cum-West Midlands bench press champion.) 
Some basic ground turkeys:
Some lawyers - known as “good” or “competent” lawyers, are equipped to deal with complex jurisdictional cross-border legal issues.
I however am assuming that all activity takes place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
Some lawyers - known as “good” or “competent” lawyers, are equipped to deal with complex jurisdictional cross-border legal issues.
I however am assuming that all activity takes place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
And by “ground turkeys” I of course mean “ground rules”.
As the wine flows and my typing speed increases there is a decent chance that autocorrect will take over and create an alternative (although equally legally valid) thread.
As the wine flows and my typing speed increases there is a decent chance that autocorrect will take over and create an alternative (although equally legally valid) thread.
So, to the film. Bryan (Liam Neeson) has his pals over. They’re talking about his daughter. This is solid exposition. No legal issues yet. Mention of divorce, but I’m not biting.
Bryan is being hassled to prioritise being a heavy at a pop concert over his daughter’s 17th birthday.
Bryan takes the bait. It is Holly Valance, after all.
FIRST LEGAL* FACT: Holly Valance was born Holly Vukadinović and is now known as Holly Candy.
*May not be a legal fact.
Bryan takes the bait. It is Holly Valance, after all.
FIRST LEGAL* FACT: Holly Valance was born Holly Vukadinović and is now known as Holly Candy.
*May not be a legal fact.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the legal analysis is going to be rear-loaded. We may have a good hour of trading Wiki facts about Holly Valance before...
Oh wait! A man with a knife! Having a blade in a public place contrary to s139 Criminal Justice Act 1988! Yes! Go law!
Oh wait! A man with a knife! Having a blade in a public place contrary to s139 Criminal Justice Act 1988! Yes! Go law!
Seemingly nobody has called the police after that attempted stabbing. But it’s fine. Holly is in a cab with Bryan, and is now - inexplicably - offering his daughter singing lessons.
Holly Valance was born on 11 May 1983 and in 2013 was a judge on “Shopaholic Showdown”.
Holly Valance was born on 11 May 1983 and in 2013 was a judge on “Shopaholic Showdown”.
I love my followers.
Jimmy wants to go to France. Bryan is reticent. I fear his anxiety may prove well-founded. Although at present, it seems mostly based on mild francophobia.
And so Kimmy is Jimmy. Seriously, this phone is second only to the cat eating my pizza on my list of Bastards Ruining This Lovely Night.
Anyway, Jimmy *is* going to Paris. And she’s pretty psyched.
Now Bryan’s advising on which arrondisements are gentrified.
Anyway, Jimmy *is* going to Paris. And she’s pretty psyched.
Now Bryan’s advising on which arrondisements are gentrified.
This *is* fun. I don’t know if it’s true, but it is fun.
But we’re getting distracted.
Jimmy is on the plane. Lenor (hereafter autocorrected to “Lemon”) is bending Bryan’s ear. Leave him alone Lemon, the man’s a war hero.
But we’re getting distracted.
Jimmy is on the plane. Lenor (hereafter autocorrected to “Lemon”) is bending Bryan’s ear. Leave him alone Lemon, the man’s a war hero.
Aha! A Foreign Man is talking to Jimmy! She’s defying her father! NO JIMMY!
Now she’s telling this man (Accent? French?) that they’re all alone in the apartment.
And now the Foreign Man is making a suspicious call.
This is the start of the indictment period for the conspiracy.
Now she’s telling this man (Accent? French?) that they’re all alone in the apartment.
And now the Foreign Man is making a suspicious call.
This is the start of the indictment period for the conspiracy.
Uh oh.
Jimmy can see someone in the apartment.
They’re grabbing Amanda.
This is kidnap, a common law offence carrying life imprisonment.
There are no sentencing guidelines for kidnap. I appreciate this doesn’t help Jimmy right now, but it is a bona fide Legal Fact.
Jimmy can see someone in the apartment.
They’re grabbing Amanda.
This is kidnap, a common law offence carrying life imprisonment.
There are no sentencing guidelines for kidnap. I appreciate this doesn’t help Jimmy right now, but it is a bona fide Legal Fact.
Bryan is telling Jimmy to hide under the bed and shout out details. He is not, you will notice, contacting the French police.
This gross negligence will later be relied upon at Bryan’s trial.
This gross negligence will later be relied upon at Bryan’s trial.
IT’S THE SCENE!!!
Now, turn in your books to section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861: Threats to kill.
The offence is committed where without lawful excuse a person makes a threat to kill intending that the other person fear it will be carried out.
Maximum sentence 10 years.
The offence is committed where without lawful excuse a person makes a threat to kill intending that the other person fear it will be carried out.
Maximum sentence 10 years.
Bryan has the inside scoop from his creepy pal: these are Albanian people traffickers.
He has snuck into a building by hiding behind a Frenchman carrying a bag with two large baguettes. Presumably the rest of the bag contained onions, a beret and a black and white stripey top.
He has snuck into a building by hiding behind a Frenchman carrying a bag with two large baguettes. Presumably the rest of the bag contained onions, a beret and a black and white stripey top.
Human trafficking is really not fertile ground for irreverence. So I’ll just set out the law and move on.
Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to that person being exploited. There you go.
Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to that person being exploited. There you go.
O! Bryan has grabbed Foreign Man, pushed him into a cab and started punching the bejesus out of him!
Assault by beating, contrary to s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. And he’s taken the taxi without the owner’s consent. That is legally naughty by virtue of s12 of the Theft Act 1968
Assault by beating, contrary to s39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. And he’s taken the taxi without the owner’s consent. That is legally naughty by virtue of s12 of the Theft Act 1968
As Bryan chased one of the bad men, said bad man met his maker by running in front of a lorry.
There is an interesting argument here over causation. Legally, Bryan is quite possibly culpable.
So let’s count that as his first homicide. ☑️
There is an interesting argument here over causation. Legally, Bryan is quite possibly culpable.
So let’s count that as his first homicide. ☑️
“I will tear down the Eiffel Tower if I have to”. Not without committing an offence of criminal damage carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, you won’t, matey.
Now Bryan is trying to extract money from a trafficked sex worker by inexplicably telling her about a karaoke machine he once bought.
Her minder then extorts money from Bryan by the use and threat of violence. That, my friends, is a robbery. But it has allowed Bryan to bug him.
Her minder then extorts money from Bryan by the use and threat of violence. That, my friends, is a robbery. But it has allowed Bryan to bug him.
The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 might apply here if Bryan were any sort of official state agent. But he’s not. He is, however, possibly a data controller and so subject to GDPR. In which case he needs to be very careful with that Albanian’s personal data.
Right. A lot is happening very quickly. Stock check:
🔴Lots of assaults occasioning actual bodily harm by Bryan on Bad Foreign Men
🔴Firearms offences (some appearing to carry minimum sentences of 5 years)
🔴Dangerous driving
🔴Arson
🔴Attempted murder
🔴Lots of assaults occasioning actual bodily harm by Bryan on Bad Foreign Men
🔴Firearms offences (some appearing to carry minimum sentences of 5 years)
🔴Dangerous driving
🔴Arson
🔴Attempted murder
While, I appreciate, not at the top of his concerns, this all means that Bryan will be disqualified from driving for a period of at least a year and will have to pass an extended retest before he can lawfully drive again.
That disqualification will be lengthened to take account of any custodial sentence he is given, so that it doesn’t expire while he’s still in prison. That’s s35A and s35B Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Told you we’d get some law in.
Told you we’d get some law in.
Although he’s not with us tonight, I would like at this juncture, as Bryan is unlawfully administering intravenous drugs to a young woman, to raise a glass to my good friend @DavidMuttering, who was put in Twitter jail for tweeting the below line. Who says Twitter can’t moderate?
Bryan’s French pal, Jean-Claude (of course) is pretty cross at the “mess” that Bryan has made.
That’s the kind of lawyerly understatement you can enjoy by watching every plea in mitigation ever, when we describe our client’s outrageously illegal conduct as “unacceptable”.
That’s the kind of lawyerly understatement you can enjoy by watching every plea in mitigation ever, when we describe our client’s outrageously illegal conduct as “unacceptable”.
Oh god, Bryan is now admitting to extorting some migrants, going on some mad rant about illegal foreigners coming over here and not respecting our (in fact, the French’s) customs.
Bryan is a decade ahead of his time. Today he’d be Home Secretary.
Bryan is a decade ahead of his time. Today he’d be Home Secretary.
He’s just killed them all! Summary justice, à la Bryan. All coz of dodgy voice recognition evidence.
I think you will struggle to find a single expert able to definitively identify a person’s voice from the words “good luck”.
But Bryan has. What a man.
Anyway, 3 more murders.
I think you will struggle to find a single expert able to definitively identify a person’s voice from the words “good luck”.
But Bryan has. What a man.
Anyway, 3 more murders.
Ah, torture. Where would we be without you?
This would have been an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent (s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861), but Bryan’s gone and made it a full-scale sadistic murder.
Life with a minimum term of 30 years.
This would have been an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent (s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861), but Bryan’s gone and made it a full-scale sadistic murder.
Life with a minimum term of 30 years.
Bryan’s just shot Jean-Claude’s wife in the arm to teach JC a lesson, the daft misogynist.
We add possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (s16 Firearms Act 1968) and unlawful wounding to the indictment.
We add possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life (s16 Firearms Act 1968) and unlawful wounding to the indictment.
Now he’s knocked out a waiter by punching him in the throat. This is getting gratuitous, Bryan.
Another assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Another assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Bryan is trying to buy his daughter from the traffickers. They’ve declined, and decided to throttle him instead. Attempting to choke to commit an indictable offence, section 21 OAPA 1861.
Happily Bryan has the strength of a horny bison and is able to tear pipes off the wall.
Happily Bryan has the strength of a horny bison and is able to tear pipes off the wall.
He’s just shot another man in the lift. There is really no need.
I lost track of the body count three drinks ago. I think we’re in the forties.
More dangerous driving. The man is a menace.
I lost track of the body count three drinks ago. I think we’re in the forties.
More dangerous driving. The man is a menace.
Ah, the Boat Of Evil Foreigners. A boat which the Prosecution can apply to have forfeited under s11 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, when these traffickers are convicted (those of them left unslaughtered, at least).
Now I am not a boatsperson. Nor a maritime lawyer. I know a man who is (@ShipBrief) but I’m clueless.
However, you have paid for criminal law advice, and so criminal law advice you shall receive - the finest that a stranger on the internet has to offer.
It comes in two parts:
However, you have paid for criminal law advice, and so criminal law advice you shall receive - the finest that a stranger on the internet has to offer.
It comes in two parts:
One: this looks like an offence of failing to navigate at a safe speed, contrary to some legislation that Google can’t identify.
Two: at the very least, this activity would contravene the Rules of the Road for users of Chichester Harbour: conservancy.co.uk/assets/files/c…
Two: at the very least, this activity would contravene the Rules of the Road for users of Chichester Harbour: conservancy.co.uk/assets/files/c…
Oh, there’s Jimmy. Whoop de doo. I hope she realises how much bloodshed there has been all because she had to go and watch Bono wang on about something or other.
Bryan saves her. As he damn well should.
Bryan saves her. As he damn well should.
So. As the film reaches its end with a reprise from Holly Valance (whose father was a former pianist and model in his native Belgrade), let’s look at where Bryan is up to, legally speaking.
There’s been a lot of murder. Let’s get that out on the table. A heck of a lot.
But does Bryan have any defences open to him?
Let’s see.
It’s a defence to any offence if you are acting in self-defence or to prevent a crime.
BUT.
But does Bryan have any defences open to him?
Let’s see.
It’s a defence to any offence if you are acting in self-defence or to prevent a crime.
BUT.
You have to show that you genuinely believed the use of force was necessary, and that the degree was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
I think Bryan’s killing spree may struggle to meet this defence. A lot of those dead men were pretty unthreatening.
I think Bryan’s killing spree may struggle to meet this defence. A lot of those dead men were pretty unthreatening.
If I were defending, I would want psychiatric reports up to the eyeballs. His best shout may be diminished responsibility.
This defence, if successful, can reduce murder to manslaughter.
Here’s what we need (Section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009):
This defence, if successful, can reduce murder to manslaughter.
Here’s what we need (Section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009):
Alternatively, we could consider “loss of control”. This is where the killing resulted from a loss of self-control, caused by a “qualifying trigger” and a person of the defendant’s age and sex with normal tolerance and restraint might have reacted in a similar way.
However...
However...
...while many men may have been pretty concerned at their daughter’s kidnapping, and this *could* amount to a “qualifying trigger”, behold subsection 4:
The defence does not apply if he acted “in a consistent desire for revenge”.
Exhibit A:
The defence does not apply if he acted “in a consistent desire for revenge”.
Exhibit A:
So, in summary, barring strong psychiatric evidence and a partial defence of diminished responsibility (which could still result in a life sentence), Bryan is looking at about two dozen counts of murder.
Many of these were sadistic and with a firearm.
It’s a whole life order:
Many of these were sadistic and with a firearm.
It’s a whole life order:
And..that’s it!
Thank you for your charming company on this drizzly August evening. I think we can all say that we’ve learned very little, but we are at least a bit sadder and more full of pizza, which is as much as anyone can ask in this godawful year.
Enjoy the bank holiday x
Thank you for your charming company on this drizzly August evening. I think we can all say that we’ve learned very little, but we are at least a bit sadder and more full of pizza, which is as much as anyone can ask in this godawful year.
Enjoy the bank holiday x
Oh yeah, and the cynical self-promotional bit: #FakeLaw is published this Thursday (3rd Sept). I can’t promise analysis of pornographically violent films, but I can promise some righteous rage and non-lawyerly lawsplaining.
In case you fancy pre-ordering:
In case you fancy pre-ordering:
