Take a Medium to court?

[The_Corinthian]

I was wondering if anyone has ever tried this. If a skeptic went to a medium and was fed the usual lies, what's to stop them from then taking said medium to court? The medium would then be forced to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their powers were genuine, or lose the case.

This could then open the flood gates, as we all know that one medium after the other would be thrown to the dogs. Character profiles would be done to see how incredulous their past claims were (Sally Morgan springs to mind); since most so-called mediums only fabricate a history detailed enough to convince a believer, they would be far from water tight.

This would be a great way to discredit mediums, and stop them from conducting their shameful practises.

Any thoughts?

[vbloke]

Technically, the Fraudulent Mediums Act should be more than sufficient to stop these people.

However, in practice, it is rarely upheld. I doubt you'd make much of a dent suing them one by one, and it would be rather costly.

[The_Corinthian]

It would only be costly to them if you won, which would be more than likely. One person couldn't do it, but it only takes one high publicity case to do it, and like I said, the floods gates would open.

We live in a society that's more then happy to sue anyone if they can make some quick cash out of it. It just needs one landmark case.

[Mojo]

I was wondering if anyone has ever tried this. If a skeptic went to a medium and was fed the usual lies, what's to stop them from then taking said medium to court? What would you sue them for?
The medium would then be forced to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their powers were genuine, or lose the case.
They wouldn't be forced to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

In a civil case, the standard of proof would be the balance of probability, and the onus would be on the plaintiff to make their case*. In a criminal case, it would be up to the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

*Unless you could come up with some way of suing the psychic for libel, in which case the burden would be on them to prove their defence.

[Mojo]

Technically, the Fraudulent Mediums Act should be more than sufficient to stop these people.
A bit tricky to bring a prosecution other than through the authorities though:
(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be, brought in England or Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

[MischiefMonkey]

The problem is, what damages/compensation would you be suing them for?

Not only do you have to prove on balance of probability that they were lying but that they also caused you 'damage'

You could sue for the 'consultation' fee. It might be worth it if the fee was high. But when faced with court action a psychic would probably refund this anyway. And IIRC, it costs £30 to put in a claim in the Small Claims Court, I don't know the current psychic rate, but apart from the celebrity psychics, I would have thought it wasn't much higher. As costs are rarely awarded in the Small Claims Court, you are going to break even at best.

You could sue if you acted on advice and it cost you money, for example if a psychic told you to quit your job because you are going to get a better one. But, what psychic ever gives such specific advice? It is usually 'I see new and exciting work challenges ahead'. You would also have to prove that they actually told you this, otherwise it is your word against theirs. And the judge would also consider whether it was reasonable for you to act on the psychic's advice. Unless you could be shown to be particularly vulnerable and the psychic knew this, the judge would likely expect you to show some common sense before acting on a detrimental course of action on the say so of a psychic. Especially, as you suggest, it was a skeptic who visited the psychic.

BTW, the balance of proof in a civil case is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' - it is 'on the balance of probability'.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be entirely unfeasible. :sad:

There may be instances where civil action is possible, but not where a skeptic visits a psychic.

[chillzero]

A bit tricky to bring a prosecution other than through the authorities though:

I have in fact tried this. I approached the DPP about a particular medium's claims, and was fobbed off to go to the relevant police department with any criminal claims. There was some faffing about trying to work out if that was the police local to me, or the medium, but in the end, no one wanted to touch it and I gave up jumping through hoops.

[Zaira]

So that leaves it up to you guys. I think some people really believe they can are psychic. I have and never have had any problem with them. It's a case of buyer beware. It's the ones claiming to solve mystery police cases that I have a problem with. Those poor families. How desperate they must be to resort to asking a medium for help. And then if nothing comes of it - is all hope lost?

[chillzero]

So that leaves it up to you guys. I think some people really believe they can are psychic. I have and never have had any problem with them. It's a case of buyer beware. It's the ones claiming to solve mystery police cases that I have a problem with. Those poor families. How desperate they must be to resort to asking a medium for help. And then if nothing comes of it - is all hope lost?

Hopefully not all hope is lost.

A good example of what can come from reacting after the fact to medium interference in missing persons cases is found at Kelly's blog:

http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/

And in particular her section on psychics:

http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com...chics-and.html (http://voice4themissing.blogspot.com/2006/03/30606-pmp-introduction-to-psychics-and.html)

Kelly Jolkowski has picked herself up and channelled her anger and her hope into very successful ventures. Children have been found, thanks in large part to her efforts, and laws have been passed to assist families and law enforcement.

I considered parallelling her work with a UK version, but unfortunately have not yet acheived a position to devote appropriate time and energy to it.

(Sorry for re-posting links, but I strongly feel they apply here, and I don't think that Kelly's site can be publicised enough)

[Zaira]

I read the links. So where are all the psychics who could help find these people? I guess they are not high profile enough. It’s like I said on another forum when someone asked a God question. Even if I learned that God did exist, I don’t care because I have seen too much suffering to give him the time of day. The same goes for psychics and mediums.

[The_Corinthian]

What would you sue them for?

Fraud.



They wouldn't be forced to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

They'd be forced to prove that what they said was the truth. The only reasonable way to do this would be to do a demonstation of thier "powers" under test conditions.

[The_Corinthian]

The problem is, what damages/compensation would you be suing them for?

The mental scaring caused by pretending to be speaking to a dead relative, where in reality it is nothing but lies. Claims of severe depression, confusion, etc.. It's the sort of thing that people get sued for all the time, and for usually much less severe crimes.

[Mojo]

Fraud.

That's a crime. To prosecute for fraud you'd need to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. The medium wouldn't need to prove anything.
Assuming that you mean misrepresentation, you would need to establish on the balance of probablity that they knew that what they told you wasn't true. You would also need to prove that their misrepresentation caused you some actual harm.


They'd be forced to prove that what they said was the truth. The only reasonable way to do this would be to do a demonstation of thier "powers" under test conditions.
No, you would be the one who would have to prove
a) that their powers weren't real, and
b) that they knew this when they gave the reading.

[The_Corinthian]

That's a crime. To prosecute for fraud you'd need to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.


I believe that's what I've said from the start.



The medium wouldn't need to prove anything.
Assuming that you mean misrepresentation, you would need to establish on the balance of probablity that they knew that what they told you wasn't true. You would also need to prove that their misrepresentation caused you some actual harm.


Sorry but they would have to prove it. If they are charging for a service they can't actually provide, that is fraudulent. Proving they caused you emotional grief would be a walk in the park, people get sued for that every day.



No, you would be the one who would have to prove
a) that their powers weren't real, and
b) that they knew this when they gave the reading.

What's the difference between proving their powers are real and proving they aren't?

The idea that they can get off the hook by pretending they didn't realise they didn't have any powers is ludicrous. The burden of proof is entirely on the psychic to prove that they can provide the service they are charging for. This applies to any business, otherwise everyone could make outrageous claims about their services, and just claim naivety if they got caught.

[Mojo]

That's a crime. To prosecute for fraud you'd need to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.I believe that's what I've said from the start.

No, what you said was that the medium would have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt:

The medium would then be forced to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their powers were genuine, or lose the case.

That's not the same as you having to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt, is it?


Sorry but they would have to prove it. If they are charging for a service they can't actually provide, that is fraudulent.
You would have to prove that they didn't believe their powers were genuine, I suspect.



Proving they caused you emotional grief would be a walk in the park, people get sued for that every day.

How would you go about establishing this? For a start, you'd have to be prepared to say, under oath, that you believed their powers were real (otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do you any harm, would they?). And saying you'd suffered "emotional grief" wouldn't be enough; you'd need expert evidence about your mental state, and the effect on the medium had on your life (you'd probably have to have become unable to work as a result, or to have required expensive counselling, for example, to get any real damages).



What's the difference between proving their powers are real and proving they aren't?
One would (if they were genuine) be very easy to do. The other is logically impossible.


The idea that they can get off the hook by pretending they didn't realise they didn't have any powers is ludicrous. The burden of proof is entirely on the psychic to prove that they can provide the service they are charging for. This applies to any business, otherwise everyone could make outrageous claims about their services, and just claim naivety if they got caught.
It is very difficult for the authorities to get a conviction, because of the burden of proof in criminal cases. In a civil case, it would be difficult to establish liability, and difficult to establish that quantifiable damage had been done.

[Mojo]

For a start, you'd have to be prepared to say, under oath, that you believed their powers were real (otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do you any harm, would they?).

And if you believed that their powers were genuine, why shouldn't they?

[The_Corinthian]

No, what you said was that the medium would have to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt:
That's not the same as you having to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt, is it?

Actually I said they would have to prove their powers were genuine. You've amended it to 'prove their case' yourself. I don't see what this nit-picking proves in any case.



You would have to prove that they didn't believe their powers were genuine, I suspect.

I don't see how that affects the outcome. It doesn't change the fact that they are charging for a service they can't provide.



How would you go about establishing this? For a start, you'd have to be prepared to say, under oath, that you believed their powers were real (otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do you any harm, would they?).


Why on earth would you have to say you are believer under oath? Plenty of skeptical people visit mediums, they just reserve judgement until they've seen for themselves.



And saying you'd suffered "emotional grief" wouldn't be enough; you'd need expert evidence about your mental state, and the effect on the medium had on your life (you'd probably have to have become unable to work as a result, or to have required expensive counselling, for example, to get any real damages).

Still not nearly as hard as you're making it out to be. Who's to say someone fabriating stories about my dead relatives/friends won't have a debilitating effect? The damages are far from the main issue anyway, the whole point is the put a mediums claims under the spot-light in a court environment.



One would (if they were genuine) be very easy to do. The other is logically impossible.


A test to prove they have psychic powers, would be performed in the same way as a test to prove they don't. I don't see how they are different.



It is very difficult for the authorities to get a conviction, because of the burden of proof in criminal cases. In a civil case, it would be difficult to establish liability, and difficult to establish that quantifiable damage had been done.

I don't see why it would be difficult to convict someone of charging for a service they can't provide, simply saying it's difficult doesn't change that. It also wouldn't be as difficult to establish that damage had been done, as it's more then possible for a psychic to cause psychological damage to skeptical mind. If skeptic meant 'unbeliever' you might be right, but to most people it means 'open minded', someone who is prepared to see for themselves before they make up their minds.

The right conditions would be difficult to find granted, but not impossible as you're trying to make out.

[Mojo]

Actually I said they would have to prove their powers were genuine. You've amended it to 'prove their case' yourself. I don't see what this nit-picking proves in any case. I quoted your exact words in that post: here they are again:
The medium would then be forced to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that their powers were genuine, or lose the case.
The fact remains that in a criminal case the defence doesn't have to prove anything. Even in a civil case, they don't have to prove anything "beyond all reasonable doubt".



I don't see how that affects the outcome. It doesn't change the fact that they are charging for a service they can't provide.
In a criminal case for fraud, it is going to be difficult to overcome the burden of proof, as the prosecution would need to prove intent to defraud beyond reasonable doubt.



Why on earth would you have to say you are believer under oath? Plenty of skeptical people visit mediums, they just reserve judgement until they've seen for themselves.
But you're trying to sue them: you need to have somehow suffered damage as a result of their misrepresentation. If you knew at the time that it was misrepresentation, then you have no cause of action. Even if they were trying to fool you, they failed.



Still not nearly as hard as you're making it out to be. Who's to say someone fabriating stories about my dead relatives/friends won't have a debilitating effect?
Who's to say indeed, but the court will need proof of the damage suffered.


The damages are far from the main issue anyway, the whole point is the put a mediums claims under the spot-light in a court environment.
The court is unlikely to look favourably on their time being wasted by an action with no chance of recovery of damages.


A test to prove they have psychic powers, would be performed in the same way as a test to prove they don't. I don't see how they are different.
The test may be the same, but the outcomes are different. Run a test: if the results are positive, then the medium has shown that their powers are genuine. If the results are negative, it only proves that their powers weren't working on that particular occasion.


I don't see why it would be difficult to convict someone of charging for a service they can't provide, simply saying it's difficult doesn't change that. It also wouldn't be as difficult to establish that damage had been done, as it's more then possible for a psychic to cause psychological damage to skeptical mind. If skeptic meant 'unbeliever' you might be right, but to most people it means 'open minded', someone who is prepared to see for themselves before they make up their minds.
How would they cause you damage unless you believed that what they were telling you was genuine?


The right conditions would be difficult to find granted, but not impossible as you're trying to make out.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove intent to defraud. All the medium has to do is to say that it's for entertainment, and they're in the clear. And they need to be able to claim that it's for entertainment to avoid prosecution under the Fraudulent Mediums Act (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1100678), which states:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who—
(a)
with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or
(b)
in purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise such powers as aforesaid, uses any fraudulent device,
shall be guilty of an offence.

...

Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment.

[Legaleagle]

The last successful prosecution of a medium was under the Witchcraft Act. I think it was the Duncan case but if anyone knows of any subsequent ones I'd be interested to hear about them.

The Witchcraft Act was repealed in the 1950's and replaced with the Fraudulent Mediums Act (FMA) which is full of loopholes and get out of jail clauses for mediums. As I understand it the FMA was passed into law as a Private Members Bill brought in by a guy called Brooks who was himself a practising spiritualist!

In my view the FMA needs looking at, but the trouble is that no government is going to make a manifesto commitment to review it (for fear of loss of credibility) unless there is sufficient public backing for a repeal or amendement. A Private Members Bill could be brought, but these rarely succede and the person who brings it is likely to open himself up to ridicule in the press.

[Mojo]

The last successful prosecution of a medium was under the Witchcraft Act. I think it was the Duncan case but if anyone knows of any subsequent ones I'd be interested to hear about them.


The only information I've been able to find is on this page (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/vo970113/text/70113w04.htm) from Hansard, which gives figures for 1980 to 1995:
Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Blatch on 10th December (HL Deb. WA 89), how many prosecutions and convictions there have been under the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 since its enactment.

13 Jan 1997 : Column WA15

Baroness Blatch: The information requested for the years 1980 to 1995 is given in the table. Information for earlier years is not available.

Number of prosecutions at magistrates' courts and convictions at all courts for offences under section (1) of the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951, 1980-1995
England and Wales

Prosecutions Convictions
1980 -- --
1981 -- --
1982 -- --
1983 -- --
1984 1 1
1985 1 --
1986 1 1
1987 -- --
1988 -- --
1989 -- --
1990 1 1
1991 1 1
1992 1 1
1993 -- --
1994 -- --
1995 -- --

(1) Purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium for reward.

Sorry: that table keeps coming out wonky. Basically, one successful prosecution on each of the years 1984, 1986, 1990, 1991, and 1992, and an unsuccessful prosecution in 1985.

[The_Corinthian]

I quoted your exact words in that post: here they are again:
The fact remains that in a criminal case the defence doesn't have to prove anything. Even in a civil case, they don't have to prove anything "beyond all reasonable doubt".

Well, I still see two different paragraphs, you've used my words yes, you've just chosen to rearrange them to pick on an insignificant point. I said 'the case', you said, "their case". I'm not going to waste on more time on this pointless part of the thread.




In a criminal case for fraud, it is going to be difficult to overcome the burden of proof, as the prosecution would need to prove intent to defraud beyond reasonable doubt.


Who said it was going to be easy? I don't see 'difficult' as reason enough not to try.



But you're trying to sue them: you need to have somehow suffered damage as a result of their misrepresentation. If you knew at the time that it was misrepresentation, then you have no cause of action. Even if they were trying to fool you, they failed.

Since this is a hypothetical situation, there's no reason it has to apply to me, I don't believe I said it had to. All it requires is someone who was open-minded at the time, but has since suffered as a result. There's certainly cases of this happening.




Who's to say indeed, but the court will need proof of the damage suffered.


Still not impossible by any means, so I don't know why you continue to drive the point.



The court is unlikely to look favourably on their time being wasted by an action with no chance of recovery of damages.


It's only your opinion of it being 'no chance', and considering how easy it is for people to sue for mental damages these days, I still fail to see how you can so easily declare this impossible.



The test may be the same, but the outcomes are different. Run a test: if the results are positive, then the medium has shown that their powers are genuine. If the results are negative, it only proves that their powers weren't working on that particular occasion.


That would be neither here nor there, the fact is they weren't able to back their claims. Re-testing to drive the point home isn't exactly out of the question either.



How would they cause you damage unless you believed that what they were telling you was genuine?


Again, try and remember this is hypothetical and doesn't have to apply to me personally.



The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove intent to defraud. All the medium has to do is to say that it's for entertainment, and they're in the clear. And they need to be able to claim that it's for entertainment to avoid prosecution under the Fraudulent Mediums Act (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=1100678), which states:

They would have needed to have made it clear from the start that it was for the purpose of entertainment. Regardless, I don't see how claiming something was for entertainment as a defence, resolves someone of any responsibility their actions may have caused.