|
Silver
Original Poster
4,015 posts
95 months
|
The police arrest you for something you didn't do, there's no evidence but the CPS decide to charge you anyway?
Is that even possible? How would you get out of it?
Not an actual situation, just an idle query after chatting with colleagues.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,916 posts
68 months
|
Silver said: The police arrest you for something you didn't do, there's no evidence but the CPS decide to charge you anyway?
Is that even possible? How would you get out of it?
Not an actual situation, just an idle query after chatting with colleagues. The CPS wouldn't; there's a test in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors" whereby there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction. So if there was absolutely no evidence at all, they wouldn't bring the case.
|
|
|
Silver
Original Poster
4,015 posts
95 months
|
Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it.
|
|
|
9mm
618 posts
79 months
|
If the Police are prepared to lie, and support a complainant who is also lying, then you may be in very deep trouble. Especially if it goes in front of Magistrates. I hope it doesn't happen to you because it is a scar on your life forever.
|
|
|
mattnunn
4,114 posts
30 months
|
Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. Witness evidence is proof. Your example is bad though as a court would expect some level of expertise in the judgment of dangerous driving. If a policeman saw you driving dangerously you'd be convicted without any otehr evidence other than his witness.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
IT1GTR
394 posts
24 months
|
Usually I believe word against word is not enough to charge, I have seen cases NFA'd on that basis. However with cases of DV they seem far more eager to charge, even if it is word against word.
Although someone more knowledgeable might correct me in a bit.
|
|
|
Dwight VanDriver
6,389 posts
113 months
|
Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. Just on that I am 99.9% CPS wouldn't touch a prosecution. They would need morte evidence. Perhaps an admission by the person complained of on inbterview. dvd
|
|
|
vonhosen
27,145 posts
86 months
|
mattnunn said: Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. Witness evidence is proof. Your example is bad though as a court would expect some level of expertise in the judgment of dangerous driving. If a policeman saw you driving dangerously you'd be convicted without any otehr evidence other than his witness. There doesn't need to be expertise in the judgement of dangerous driving. The witness swears on oath what they observed & the court decides if it amounts to dangerous driving based on the (careful competent driver) test & if it is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
streaky
18,239 posts
118 months
|
Dwight VanDriver said: Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. Just on that I am 99.9% CPS wouldn't touch a prosecution. They would need morte evidence. Perhaps an admission by the person complained of on inbterview. dvd Don't tell me! You've joined Derek in using Dragon ... or are you just back from the pub?  Streaky
|
|
|
N Dentressangle
2,459 posts
91 months
|
|
|
davepoth
19,916 posts
68 months
|
Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. Depends on the nature of the offence, and the nature of the person giving their word. For example, if that person happened to be an off duty police officer, then it's more likely for it to proceed than if the person was a three times convicted fraudster, assuming it was a reasonably minor offence.
|
|
|
agtlaw
1,468 posts
75 months
|
Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. witness evidence is evidence. actually the question is a very good one as Scottish criminal law requires corroboration. i listened to a very interesting lecture from a Supreme Court judge about this subject not too long ago. possibly on bbc iplayer?
|
|
|
Puddenchucker
1,959 posts
87 months
|
vonhosen said: mattnunn said: Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. Witness evidence is proof. Your example is bad though as a court would expect some level of expertise in the judgment of dangerous driving. If a policeman saw you driving dangerously you'd be convicted without any otehr evidence other than his witness. There doesn't need to be expertise in the judgement of dangerous driving. The witness swears on oath what they observed & the court decides if it amounts to dangerous driving based on the (careful competent driver) test & if it is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt. And witnesses have never been known to use embellishment, conjecture or downright lies when giving evidence under oath?
|
|
|
Mill Wheel
4,991 posts
65 months
|
davepoth said: Silver said: The police arrest you for something you didn't do, there's no evidence but the CPS decide to charge you anyway?
Is that even possible? How would you get out of it?
Not an actual situation, just an idle query after chatting with colleagues. The CPS wouldn't; there's a test in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors" whereby there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction. So if there was absolutely no evidence at all, they wouldn't bring the case. I have been investigated on the word of somebody else, and the police found no evidence to support the allegation, and the only witness put forward by the complainant threw out their claim emphatically. Two senior officers reviewed all the "evidence" and decided to forward it to the CPS - who then had two bites at the cherry (the CPS "evidential test") before they (CPS lawyers) decided NFA. I feel I would have been better off had the CPS taken it to court, so that I could be PROVEN not guilty - but it would still have been a risk!! It depends on what is alleged, by whom, and about who. CPS can still decide to prosecute on public interest grounds, even if their is no evidence from the police investigation, and a jury MIGHT just decide you are guilty! I once reported an incidence of dangerous driving, and the other driver was sent to court. My wife and I were the only witnesses. The driver got off on a technicality, because the written NIP was served to the lease company and not the driver. I'm told he was not so lucky in his next visit to court!
|
|
|
vonhosen
27,145 posts
86 months
|
Puddenchucker said: vonhosen said: mattnunn said: Silver said: Sorry, I didn't make that very clear - I meant if there was no actual evidence apart from someone's word. Like if I called the police and said 'I saw davepoth driving dangerously' but there was nothing to prove it. Witness evidence is proof. Your example is bad though as a court would expect some level of expertise in the judgment of dangerous driving. If a policeman saw you driving dangerously you'd be convicted without any otehr evidence other than his witness. There doesn't need to be expertise in the judgement of dangerous driving. The witness swears on oath what they observed & the court decides if it amounts to dangerous driving based on the (careful competent driver) test & if it is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt. And witnesses have never been known to use embellishment, conjecture or downright lies when giving evidence under oath? Of course witnesses & defendants have. It's up to the court to sort wheat from chaff.
|
|
|
vonhosen
27,145 posts
86 months
|
Mill Wheel said: davepoth said: Silver said: The police arrest you for something you didn't do, there's no evidence but the CPS decide to charge you anyway?
Is that even possible? How would you get out of it?
Not an actual situation, just an idle query after chatting with colleagues. The CPS wouldn't; there's a test in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors" whereby there must be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction. So if there was absolutely no evidence at all, they wouldn't bring the case. I have been investigated on the word of somebody else, and the police found no evidence to support the allegation, and the only witness put forward by the complainant threw out their claim emphatically. Two senior officers reviewed all the "evidence" and decided to forward it to the CPS - who then had two bites at the cherry (the CPS "evidential test") before they (CPS lawyers) decided NFA. I feel I would have been better off had the CPS taken it to court, so that I could be PROVEN not guilty - but it would still have been a risk!! It depends on what is alleged, by whom, and about who. CPS can still decide to prosecute on public interest grounds, even if their is no evidence from the police investigation, and a jury MIGHT just decide you are guilty! I once reported an incidence of dangerous driving, and the other driver was sent to court. My wife and I were the only witnesses. The driver got off on a technicality, because the written NIP was served to the lease company and not the driver. I'm told he was not so lucky in his next visit to court! The trial is determine if there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are innocent.
|
|
|
Silver
Original Poster
4,015 posts
95 months
|
Mill Wheel said: I have been investigated on the word of somebody else, and the police found no evidence to support the allegation, and the only witness put forward by the complainant threw out their claim emphatically.
Two senior officers reviewed all the "evidence" and decided to forward it to the CPS - who then had two bites at the cherry (the CPS "evidential test") before they (CPS lawyers) decided NFA.
I feel I would have been better off had the CPS taken it to court, so that I could be PROVEN not guilty - but it would still have been a risk!!
It depends on what is alleged, by whom, and about who.
CPS can still decide to prosecute on public interest grounds, even if their is no evidence from the police investigation, and a jury MIGHT just decide you are guilty! Wow, that must be pretty stressful if you know you're innocent and the allegations are a bunch of bulls  t. Dwight VanDriver said: Just on that I am 99.9% CPS wouldn't touch a prosecution. They would need morte evidence. Perhaps an admission by the person complained of on inbterview.
dvd This was the basis of what one of my colleagues was trying to say, that a prosecution couldn't be pursued based on an allegation, no confession and no evidence. Others disagreed and it made me curious. Just as a side note, the dangerous driving example was my addition - the original discussion was more general. I was trying to think of an example of something potentially criminal, fairly subjective as an offence and which didn't have any actual evidence apart from that of a witness. There are probably better examples but that was all I could come up with at the time.
|
|
|
Silver
Original Poster
4,015 posts
95 months
|
vonhosen said: The trial is determine if there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are innocent. Actually, that raises kind of an interesting point because presumably if someone is found not guilty then the assumption is that there simply isn't enough evidence to convict rather than that the defendant is innocent. What's the alternative to a not guilty verdict if the case for the prosecution isn't sufficient? How does that then affect the defendant's record? Sorry, I'm sure this has been discussed before but I don't have any knowledge about this really and I found it quite interesting.
|
|
|
vonhosen
27,145 posts
86 months
|
Silver said: vonhosen said: The trial is determine if there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are innocent. Actually, that raises kind of an interesting point because presumably if someone is found not guilty then the assumption is that there simply isn't enough evidence to convict rather than that the defendant is innocent. What's the alternative to a not guilty verdict if the case for the prosecution isn't sufficient? How does that then affect the defendant's record? Sorry, I'm sure this has been discussed before but I don't have any knowledge about this really and I found it quite interesting. Innocence is presumed in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, it doesn't need proving. Not guilty is a plea rather than a tested outcome. If the case isn't proven you are acquitted (free from the charge against you). Scotland is a little different, they have two different acquittals. 'Not guilty' & 'Not proven'.
|
|
|
Mill Wheel
4,991 posts
65 months
|
vonhosen said: The trial is determine if there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are innocent. A trial would have afforded me the opportunity to expose my accuser and the lies they told in their statement. It might also have shown why despite my accuser knowing where I lived and worked, it took police over 6 months to find me - it is my belief that my accuser hindered their investigation by altering key details, and failing to inform them of my whereabouts. Unknown to me, my accuser had once been caught shoplifting, and gave the name and address of another person - a deceit exposed when she failed to answer bail, and (the arresting) officers called at the address given and discovered the deception. 30 years later my accuser gave this same person's name as a witness against me! When questioned, the response given was "That is complete b ks". Makes you wonder why the case was forwarded to the CPS, and why it took the CPS two reviews/tests before NFA was given - which in no way exonerates me!
|
|
