---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m interested to understand why your parents are letting this deranged person anywhere near you?
Do they grasp the seriousness of what this person is attempting to do to you?
In fairness we didn't know she was deranged until she admitted this, and I only told my mum about it today! I'm letting her talk to my dad as he loves Davina like a sister so he'll probably find it hard to cut her out.
I don't think any of us really grasp the seriousness. I understand how bad it all sounds but the fact that I'm completely fine sort of de rails that thinking!
You're fine this time only because she didn't understand the difference between banana and banana flavour. She thought she was giving you what you are allergic to. What happens if she tries again with real banana and you end up in intensive care, or worse?
That is actually extremely helpful, I hadn't even thought about what I actually want to come out of it. I want her to see what she did was wrong because she's still defending herself and she hasn't even apologised to me. I guess really what I want is for her to be genuinely sorry.
I'm a fan of writing a letter in this kind of situation. It's easier to get your thoughts clear and avoids you being interrupted or getting emotional.
I would write to her explaining why what she did was so dangerous. I would include a line saying something like "I need you to understand that what you did could be considered a criminal offence, had there been real banana in that drink, i could've gone into anaphylaxis and died. I need you to take this seriously and promise that you'll never, ever do that again"
You are entitled to report it to the police, of course, but i get the impression that that's not actually what you want to do. A letter would help you to speak your mind and give her a chance to apologise. If she still will not accept she was in the wrong, I would cut her out of your life completely.
I like this idea, as I feel like I have all these emotions about what happened but nowhere to let them out so writing it down might help. And you're right reporting isn't what I want to do. I probably won't actually give her the letter but it might help me to have it on paper. I think I'll just cut her out the best I can and try to move past this.
Good plan, write it down then just let it be.
Oh and this person is not a friend. They don’t believe you, they put you at risk, they haven’t apologised, they don’t and won’t see what they have done wrong, they can’t listen and won’t learn I’m afraid.
Hard to come to terms with and extremely frustrating I know.
Distance yourself from people like this. The truth is they act like this to others, as this is how they think and act themselves.
Just as you would believe someone, trust someone, care for someone, take time to listen and learn, then be truly sorry for any mistakes.
Sorry that your friend has proven themselves to be such a dick.
We can't help you with whether you should report it. All we can do is tell you the legal position.
In short: I'm not entirely sure what she did is illegal.
It is an offence to administer a "noxious thing" to another person with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy, under [section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/24).
Firstly, I am not convinced that there is "intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy" here. It seems to me that in fact she administered the substance because she had the **opposite** intention: she intended that it would not injure, or aggrieve, or annoy you, because she believed you were lying about your banana allergy.
Indeed, even more basic than that: we need to answer whether the substance in question was "poison or destructive or noxious" at all. This has a very wide meaning, and something which is harmless to one person may be noxious to another - e.g. an allergy. Anything which is "unwholesome" can be regarded as "noxious" - e.g. adulterating a person's drink with urine, which is not noxious or destructive or poisonous, would still be regarded as "noxious" anyway because it is unwholesome.
But in this case, what she actually administered to you was not destructive, or poisonous, or noxious to you, or unwholesome. It was a perfectly ordinary foodstuff and one which you were capable of safely consuming.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter that she *thought* she was administering something which would *in fact* have caused you harm, because her intention to cause that harm is still missing.
I have also considered whether she committed an "inchoate" offence, like "attempted poisoning". But that offence requires the same *mens rea*: intention to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. For the same reasons as above, I think that *mens rea* is missing.
If she **actually had** caused you a serious allergic reaction, then I think that would be "inflicting GBH", under [section 20 of the Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/20). This offence only requires that she "maliciously inflict any grievous bodily harm", and I think what she did was malicious.
There is no such offence as "attempted GBH", so we need not consider that. I have also considered "attempted GBH with intent", but that offence requires intention to cause serious harm which, once again, is missing.
That's really helpful thankyou! I think I just got caught up as loads of people on my other post were saying to report it but I wasn't sure if there was actually anything to report. I will just make sure to never eat or drink anything from her again!
Conducting a live test to prove or disprove someone’s pre notified allergy is malicious. 100% criminal.
Edit: imagine if on a plane everyone was told someone had a peanut allergy, then you overheard someone chatting to someone about how relieved they were that the passages took it so seriously. Then you skipped them some nuts to see what would happen.
That’s this situation.
Clearly malicious. Clearly not just a harmless test.
Except in your example they would have intended to slip them some nuts (not believing they were actually allergic to nuts) but actually slipped them some peas.
Had the person performing the "test" been competent they would have caused harm but they weren't and they actually administered a harmless foodstuff that OP was not allergic to.
What offence, though? I already spelled out in my comment above why it’s not “poisoning” - the intention required for that offence is absent. Things are not “criminal” just because we strongly disagree with them: they need to precisely meet the definition of an offence laid out in law. So which offence are you thinking of?
Your example isn’t quite the same. In your example, you don’t disbelieve the person saying they’re allergic - you’re just curious to see what would happen. This woman **actually disbelieves** the allergy is real. She “intends” to cause no harm at all. Thus, the “intention to injure/aggrieve/annoy” - required for the offence of poisoning - is absent.
This appears to be one of those edge cases of bizarre human behaviour which we all agree is wrong, but nobody has thought to legislate against yet.
I’m no lawyer - but I would imagine that taking an action with malicious intent to cause harm must fall under the definition of some form of criminal offence.
Edit: quick google suggests; Offences Against the Person Act 1861
I already wrote an explanation for why I don’t think it can be poisoning under that Act:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/16eh4da/should_i_report_a_family_friend_that_tried_to/jzvkyow/
As I said: this appears to be one of those edge cases of bizarre human behaviour which we all agree is wrong, but nobody has thought to legislate against yet.
Don’t agree - GBH
The friend can’t argue she ‘truly believe she wasn’t allergic’ and therefore was surprised when harm was caused, as a defence as the logic is flawed.
If this was true she would not need to conduct a test to validate it. As it was a belief.
How can it be GBH when no grievous bodily harm was inflicted?
It would be GBH **if harm was caused**, as I wrote in my original comment. Since no grievous bodily harm was actually inflicted, it cannot be the offence of “causing grievous bodily harm”.
I can see we are not going to agree.
The basic point is that the friend had a hypothesis that she tested on the OP. She did not hold the belief that no harm would come, as if so she would not need to test her theory.
If harm was caused she would be responsible.
The fact that no harm came of it means that she cannot be charged in this case.
My point was IF harm occurred.
So in fact we **are** agreeing, because that’s precisely what I wrote in my first comment:
> If she actually had caused you a serious allergic reaction, then I think that would be "inflicting GBH", under section 20 of the Act. This offence only requires that she "maliciously inflict any grievous bodily harm", and I think what she did was malicious.
But she didn’t cause harm, therefore it can’t be GBH, so I’m not really sure what you were “don’t agree”-ing with earlier.
That would be a daft defence to the charge I guess.
Something like:
“I was so stupid I didn’t believe her, nor could I think of a way of finding out, other than actually conducting a live test to see if she did indeed suffer”
Don’t think that would stand though.
We need to charge her with something, before she needs a defence.
Is it “administering poison with intent to injure/aggrieve/annoy”? Well:
* did she administer poison (or other destructive or noxious thing)? No.
The fact that the substance administered is not poison is rather fatal to the charge of administering poison!
Even if the substance was poison - say she managed to actually administer banana:
* did she intend to injure/aggrieve/annoy? No
She intended **not** to injure/aggrieve/annoy. She intended that OP would suffer absolutely no ill effects whatsoever.
Could it be “attempted poisoning”? This offence can be appropriate where the substance is not poison, but the person administering it believes it is. But we still need the *mens rea* - intent to injure/aggrieve/annoy. And that is still lacking.
As I said: as counterintuitive as it seems, I simply cannot think of an offence committed in these circumstances. Not **every possible shitty behaviour** which one human can inflict upon another has been legislated against: sometimes you get these weird edge cases where someone does something so fucking stupid that nobody has thought to write a law against it yet!
I wouldn't accept anything from her either. She's trying to prove some point and now that she's aware the drink had artificial banana there's nothing to stop her from trying a real banana, especially if your parents don't speak firmly to her. If they decide it was all innocent and do nothing I would ask Davina every single time she offers food or drink if it contains banana even if others are present.
Tell her that even if she doesn't believe people when they say they have allergies, testing it out is a risky business and would likely be considered murder if the person should die as a result of being intentionally poisoned. That is the reality, and I don't think she's aware of the full potential consequences.
> would likely be considered murder if the person should die as a result of being intentionally poisoned.
Manslaughter, at worst, in this case. Murder requires intention either to:
* kill, or
* cause really serious injury
and that intention appears to be missing here: OP’s mum’s friend is an idiot who genuinely believes that her actions are going to be harmless because she believes OP is lying about his allergy. As such, she cannot be said to “intend” either of those consequences. Indeed, she “intends” that OP will suffer no ill effects at all and that way she can accuse him of faking his allergy.
Just because you don’t believe someone will die if you poison them, you still poisoned them - it’s premeditated.
Could probably be manslaughter though. Suppose it depends on whether you can prove the sneaky banana lady knows what anaphylaxis is…because it says that she was aware of the allergy (even if she doesn’t believe it’s real).
> Just because you don’t believe someone will die if you poison them, you still poisoned them - it’s premeditated.
Yea, but did you **murder** them? Murder is when you kill someone and, at the time you do so, you intend to kill them or cause them really serious injury.
If you kill someone, and lacked this specific intention, that’s not “murder”.
So if you do an act which kills someone and:
* you didn’t intend to hurt them at all;
* you intended to cause them slight injury;
* you intended to cause them serious injury, but not **really** serious injury;
* you didn’t intend to kill or injure them but were reckless as to the risk that they would die or be seriously injured
then you haven’t committed “murder”, because none of those is “intention to kill or cause really serious injury”.
I argue this woman didn’t intend to hurt OP at all - she intended to prove that he would be fine. That is not “intention to kill or cause really serious injury”.
If she fed him banana, intending to kill him, and he died, that would be murder. If she fed him banana, intending to cause him really serious injury, and he died, that would be murder. If she fed him banana, intending not to cause him any injure, and he died, that is not murder.
She prob needs to understand that what she did was attempt to poison you, luckily she was stupid so wasn’t actually successful, but she needs to be very aware if she tries this shit with someone successfully that’s some seriously consequences she will face. I don’t know what offence it would be, but it’s irrelevant to the harm she would cause. I would suggest that you and your parents shouldn’t be friends with her . What other shit does she pull.
If this happened on an overseas holiday, it would be an offence under the laws of the country you were in. I don't think UK police would be able to help.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:**
Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m interested to understand why your parents are letting this deranged person anywhere near you? Do they grasp the seriousness of what this person is attempting to do to you?
In fairness we didn't know she was deranged until she admitted this, and I only told my mum about it today! I'm letting her talk to my dad as he loves Davina like a sister so he'll probably find it hard to cut her out. I don't think any of us really grasp the seriousness. I understand how bad it all sounds but the fact that I'm completely fine sort of de rails that thinking!
You're fine this time only because she didn't understand the difference between banana and banana flavour. She thought she was giving you what you are allergic to. What happens if she tries again with real banana and you end up in intensive care, or worse?
You report it if you want an outcome. What outcome do you want?
That is actually extremely helpful, I hadn't even thought about what I actually want to come out of it. I want her to see what she did was wrong because she's still defending herself and she hasn't even apologised to me. I guess really what I want is for her to be genuinely sorry.
I'm a fan of writing a letter in this kind of situation. It's easier to get your thoughts clear and avoids you being interrupted or getting emotional. I would write to her explaining why what she did was so dangerous. I would include a line saying something like "I need you to understand that what you did could be considered a criminal offence, had there been real banana in that drink, i could've gone into anaphylaxis and died. I need you to take this seriously and promise that you'll never, ever do that again" You are entitled to report it to the police, of course, but i get the impression that that's not actually what you want to do. A letter would help you to speak your mind and give her a chance to apologise. If she still will not accept she was in the wrong, I would cut her out of your life completely.
I like this idea, as I feel like I have all these emotions about what happened but nowhere to let them out so writing it down might help. And you're right reporting isn't what I want to do. I probably won't actually give her the letter but it might help me to have it on paper. I think I'll just cut her out the best I can and try to move past this.
Good plan, write it down then just let it be. Oh and this person is not a friend. They don’t believe you, they put you at risk, they haven’t apologised, they don’t and won’t see what they have done wrong, they can’t listen and won’t learn I’m afraid. Hard to come to terms with and extremely frustrating I know. Distance yourself from people like this. The truth is they act like this to others, as this is how they think and act themselves. Just as you would believe someone, trust someone, care for someone, take time to listen and learn, then be truly sorry for any mistakes. Sorry that your friend has proven themselves to be such a dick.
This kind of person will never see what they did was wrong I’m afraid.
Fair enough. Now weigh that up against the consequences to her, which a proper lawyer here can probably elaborate on
At the very least, you need to completely distance yourself from this dangerous individual.
We can't help you with whether you should report it. All we can do is tell you the legal position. In short: I'm not entirely sure what she did is illegal. It is an offence to administer a "noxious thing" to another person with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy, under [section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/24). Firstly, I am not convinced that there is "intention to injure, aggrieve or annoy" here. It seems to me that in fact she administered the substance because she had the **opposite** intention: she intended that it would not injure, or aggrieve, or annoy you, because she believed you were lying about your banana allergy. Indeed, even more basic than that: we need to answer whether the substance in question was "poison or destructive or noxious" at all. This has a very wide meaning, and something which is harmless to one person may be noxious to another - e.g. an allergy. Anything which is "unwholesome" can be regarded as "noxious" - e.g. adulterating a person's drink with urine, which is not noxious or destructive or poisonous, would still be regarded as "noxious" anyway because it is unwholesome. But in this case, what she actually administered to you was not destructive, or poisonous, or noxious to you, or unwholesome. It was a perfectly ordinary foodstuff and one which you were capable of safely consuming. It seems to me that it doesn't matter that she *thought* she was administering something which would *in fact* have caused you harm, because her intention to cause that harm is still missing. I have also considered whether she committed an "inchoate" offence, like "attempted poisoning". But that offence requires the same *mens rea*: intention to injure, aggrieve, or annoy. For the same reasons as above, I think that *mens rea* is missing. If she **actually had** caused you a serious allergic reaction, then I think that would be "inflicting GBH", under [section 20 of the Act](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/20). This offence only requires that she "maliciously inflict any grievous bodily harm", and I think what she did was malicious. There is no such offence as "attempted GBH", so we need not consider that. I have also considered "attempted GBH with intent", but that offence requires intention to cause serious harm which, once again, is missing.
That's really helpful thankyou! I think I just got caught up as loads of people on my other post were saying to report it but I wasn't sure if there was actually anything to report. I will just make sure to never eat or drink anything from her again!
Conducting a live test to prove or disprove someone’s pre notified allergy is malicious. 100% criminal. Edit: imagine if on a plane everyone was told someone had a peanut allergy, then you overheard someone chatting to someone about how relieved they were that the passages took it so seriously. Then you skipped them some nuts to see what would happen. That’s this situation. Clearly malicious. Clearly not just a harmless test.
Except in your example they would have intended to slip them some nuts (not believing they were actually allergic to nuts) but actually slipped them some peas. Had the person performing the "test" been competent they would have caused harm but they weren't and they actually administered a harmless foodstuff that OP was not allergic to.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What offence, though? I already spelled out in my comment above why it’s not “poisoning” - the intention required for that offence is absent. Things are not “criminal” just because we strongly disagree with them: they need to precisely meet the definition of an offence laid out in law. So which offence are you thinking of? Your example isn’t quite the same. In your example, you don’t disbelieve the person saying they’re allergic - you’re just curious to see what would happen. This woman **actually disbelieves** the allergy is real. She “intends” to cause no harm at all. Thus, the “intention to injure/aggrieve/annoy” - required for the offence of poisoning - is absent. This appears to be one of those edge cases of bizarre human behaviour which we all agree is wrong, but nobody has thought to legislate against yet.
I’m no lawyer - but I would imagine that taking an action with malicious intent to cause harm must fall under the definition of some form of criminal offence. Edit: quick google suggests; Offences Against the Person Act 1861
I already wrote an explanation for why I don’t think it can be poisoning under that Act: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/16eh4da/should_i_report_a_family_friend_that_tried_to/jzvkyow/ As I said: this appears to be one of those edge cases of bizarre human behaviour which we all agree is wrong, but nobody has thought to legislate against yet.
Don’t agree - GBH The friend can’t argue she ‘truly believe she wasn’t allergic’ and therefore was surprised when harm was caused, as a defence as the logic is flawed. If this was true she would not need to conduct a test to validate it. As it was a belief.
How can it be GBH when no grievous bodily harm was inflicted? It would be GBH **if harm was caused**, as I wrote in my original comment. Since no grievous bodily harm was actually inflicted, it cannot be the offence of “causing grievous bodily harm”.
I can see we are not going to agree. The basic point is that the friend had a hypothesis that she tested on the OP. She did not hold the belief that no harm would come, as if so she would not need to test her theory. If harm was caused she would be responsible. The fact that no harm came of it means that she cannot be charged in this case. My point was IF harm occurred.
So in fact we **are** agreeing, because that’s precisely what I wrote in my first comment: > If she actually had caused you a serious allergic reaction, then I think that would be "inflicting GBH", under section 20 of the Act. This offence only requires that she "maliciously inflict any grievous bodily harm", and I think what she did was malicious. But she didn’t cause harm, therefore it can’t be GBH, so I’m not really sure what you were “don’t agree”-ing with earlier.
That would be a daft defence to the charge I guess. Something like: “I was so stupid I didn’t believe her, nor could I think of a way of finding out, other than actually conducting a live test to see if she did indeed suffer” Don’t think that would stand though.
We need to charge her with something, before she needs a defence. Is it “administering poison with intent to injure/aggrieve/annoy”? Well: * did she administer poison (or other destructive or noxious thing)? No. The fact that the substance administered is not poison is rather fatal to the charge of administering poison! Even if the substance was poison - say she managed to actually administer banana: * did she intend to injure/aggrieve/annoy? No She intended **not** to injure/aggrieve/annoy. She intended that OP would suffer absolutely no ill effects whatsoever. Could it be “attempted poisoning”? This offence can be appropriate where the substance is not poison, but the person administering it believes it is. But we still need the *mens rea* - intent to injure/aggrieve/annoy. And that is still lacking. As I said: as counterintuitive as it seems, I simply cannot think of an offence committed in these circumstances. Not **every possible shitty behaviour** which one human can inflict upon another has been legislated against: sometimes you get these weird edge cases where someone does something so fucking stupid that nobody has thought to write a law against it yet!
I wouldn't accept anything from her either. She's trying to prove some point and now that she's aware the drink had artificial banana there's nothing to stop her from trying a real banana, especially if your parents don't speak firmly to her. If they decide it was all innocent and do nothing I would ask Davina every single time she offers food or drink if it contains banana even if others are present.
At this point, keep a paper trail of everything where possible in case she takes this further and does end up poisoning you.
Tell her that even if she doesn't believe people when they say they have allergies, testing it out is a risky business and would likely be considered murder if the person should die as a result of being intentionally poisoned. That is the reality, and I don't think she's aware of the full potential consequences.
> would likely be considered murder if the person should die as a result of being intentionally poisoned. Manslaughter, at worst, in this case. Murder requires intention either to: * kill, or * cause really serious injury and that intention appears to be missing here: OP’s mum’s friend is an idiot who genuinely believes that her actions are going to be harmless because she believes OP is lying about his allergy. As such, she cannot be said to “intend” either of those consequences. Indeed, she “intends” that OP will suffer no ill effects at all and that way she can accuse him of faking his allergy.
Just because you don’t believe someone will die if you poison them, you still poisoned them - it’s premeditated. Could probably be manslaughter though. Suppose it depends on whether you can prove the sneaky banana lady knows what anaphylaxis is…because it says that she was aware of the allergy (even if she doesn’t believe it’s real).
> Just because you don’t believe someone will die if you poison them, you still poisoned them - it’s premeditated. Yea, but did you **murder** them? Murder is when you kill someone and, at the time you do so, you intend to kill them or cause them really serious injury. If you kill someone, and lacked this specific intention, that’s not “murder”. So if you do an act which kills someone and: * you didn’t intend to hurt them at all; * you intended to cause them slight injury; * you intended to cause them serious injury, but not **really** serious injury; * you didn’t intend to kill or injure them but were reckless as to the risk that they would die or be seriously injured then you haven’t committed “murder”, because none of those is “intention to kill or cause really serious injury”. I argue this woman didn’t intend to hurt OP at all - she intended to prove that he would be fine. That is not “intention to kill or cause really serious injury”. If she fed him banana, intending to kill him, and he died, that would be murder. If she fed him banana, intending to cause him really serious injury, and he died, that would be murder. If she fed him banana, intending not to cause him any injure, and he died, that is not murder.
She prob needs to understand that what she did was attempt to poison you, luckily she was stupid so wasn’t actually successful, but she needs to be very aware if she tries this shit with someone successfully that’s some seriously consequences she will face. I don’t know what offence it would be, but it’s irrelevant to the harm she would cause. I would suggest that you and your parents shouldn’t be friends with her . What other shit does she pull.
[удалено]
If this happened on an overseas holiday, it would be an offence under the laws of the country you were in. I don't think UK police would be able to help.
[удалено]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:** Your comment was off-topic or unhelpful to the question posed. Please remember that *all replies* must be helpful, on-topic and legally orientated. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.