Dean
It’s just not really the Christmas season without a little Home Alone. You know, the classic movies—Home Alone, in which young Kevin McAllister (McCauley Culkin) is somehow forgotten at home by his rich family, and Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, where Kevin ends up, yes, alone in New York City.
In both films, Kevin deals with bad guys the Wet Bandits, Harry and Marv (Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern, respectively), who are trying to either rob his house or get him, depending on which movie you’re watching.
Recently Twitter was blessed with this thread from a lawyer who live-tweeted Lost in New York, reeling off the things that Kevin did that were totally illegal.
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
“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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
Kevin’s not the only one who would be charged with something IRL: his family’s “forgetfulness” wouldn’t be so cute or funny in the eyes of the law.
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
And the Bandits are clearly straight-up criminals.
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
So the Bandits could get life sentences.
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
Kevin fares better but does not escape unscathed.
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.
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) December 22, 2018
Really shows the movies in a whole new light, right?
