Judicial review costs budgets (plus general CPR rant)
Discussion
carinaman said:
The 3 month limit for a JR starts from the date of the letter from the IPCC saying your appeal is rejected?
Yes.Bear in mind legal stuff ain't cheap.
You need to weigh up what has happened/ how you feel you were wronged/ what the outcome may be.
Life ain't fair but what do you hope to achieve by way of a Judicial Review ?
Litigation on a point of principle is only for the super-wealthy in my opinion. Although you may have a case sometimes it is best to suck it up and move on.
Breadvan72 said:
Amen, Amen, and again I say Amen.
Funny how the real lawyers here discourage people from suing, eh? Some idiot 'kipper in another PH sub-forum is spouting the usual "all lawyers are corrupt and dishonest" blah today. I know I shouldn't care, but it gets old sometimes.
I'm not a lawyer BV, but I have met many in a professional (police) and personal capacityFunny how the real lawyers here discourage people from suing, eh? Some idiot 'kipper in another PH sub-forum is spouting the usual "all lawyers are corrupt and dishonest" blah today. I know I shouldn't care, but it gets old sometimes.
Litigation, in my experience, can be a horrendous experience even when you are in the right
It is unpleasant, stressful and can also affect not just you, but your loved ones, friends and family. Litigation (and any court proceedings) are not to be taken lightly
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 2nd April 21:47
As I didn't get a good vibe from MP when I met them, and they didn't ask about the elephant in the room even though I'd alluded to it more than once, I Emailed our learned PHer Breadvan72 and Derek Smith and asked if the officers had committed an offence. They said possibly, with one of both saying the CPS may not be interested in running with it.
Letting go may have been easier if it wasn't for the overegging and omissions in the letter from the Chief Constable which leaves a scoreline of 2-1 to me. Despite the inconsistencies and omissions they felt they were qualified to wish me well. I'd swap their well wishes for the truth.
Given there's a back story that Breadvan72 and Derek Smith may be aware of how do I know the bad apples won't crawl out from under their rock and have another go? How do I know that they won't try similar stunts on other members of the public or their colleagues? At least two people within the police made it clear something fishy was going on at the time. So swallowing the rubbish the police mail me and sent to my MP isn't backing up those two that spoke out is it? They didn't have to speak out and tell the truth.
Letting go may have been easier if it wasn't for the overegging and omissions in the letter from the Chief Constable which leaves a scoreline of 2-1 to me. Despite the inconsistencies and omissions they felt they were qualified to wish me well. I'd swap their well wishes for the truth.
Given there's a back story that Breadvan72 and Derek Smith may be aware of how do I know the bad apples won't crawl out from under their rock and have another go? How do I know that they won't try similar stunts on other members of the public or their colleagues? At least two people within the police made it clear something fishy was going on at the time. So swallowing the rubbish the police mail me and sent to my MP isn't backing up those two that spoke out is it? They didn't have to speak out and tell the truth.
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 2nd April 21:50
Red 4 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Amen, Amen, and again I say Amen.
Funny how the real lawyers here discourage people from suing, eh? Some idiot 'kipper in another PH sub-forum is spouting the usual "all lawyers are corrupt and dishonest" blah today. I know I shouldn't care, but it gets old sometimes.
I'm not a lawyer BV, but I have met many in a professional (police) and personal capacityFunny how the real lawyers here discourage people from suing, eh? Some idiot 'kipper in another PH sub-forum is spouting the usual "all lawyers are corrupt and dishonest" blah today. I know I shouldn't care, but it gets old sometimes.
Litigation, in my experience, can be a horrendous experience even when you are in the right
It is unpleasant, stressful and can also affect not just you, but your loved ones, friends and family. Litigation (and any court proceedings) are not to be taken lightly
Not a lawyer, but an honest copper, I infer. PH goes totes amaze: honest lawyers and coppers exist (but carry on saying all coppers are b
ds, and all lawyers are shysters). PS: Before anyone says it: yes, some coppers are b
ds, and some lawyers are shysters. carinaman said:
1. I asked if the officers had committed an offence. They said possibly, with one of both saying the CPS may not be interested in running with it.
2. Letting go may have been easier if it wasn't for the overegging and omissions in the letter from the Chief Constable which leaves a scoreline of 2-1 to me. Despite the inconsistencies and omissions they felt they were qualified to wish me well. I'd swap their well wishes for the truth.
3. How do I know the bad apples won't crawl out from under their rock and have another go? How do I know that they won't try similar stunts on other members of the public or their colleagues? So swallowing the rubbish the police mail me
1. I'm reading between the lines here but if you are suggesting police officers committed a criminal offence (whatever that may be) if the CPS were going to proceed with a prosecution that offence would need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It's a very high standard of proof.2. Letting go may have been easier if it wasn't for the overegging and omissions in the letter from the Chief Constable which leaves a scoreline of 2-1 to me. Despite the inconsistencies and omissions they felt they were qualified to wish me well. I'd swap their well wishes for the truth.
3. How do I know the bad apples won't crawl out from under their rock and have another go? How do I know that they won't try similar stunts on other members of the public or their colleagues? So swallowing the rubbish the police mail me
2. The truth ? Like I said, try not to get hung up on principles - no matter how difficult that is.
Remember this one - courts of law are just that - courts of LAW. They sre not, necessarily, courts of justice. That principle always served me well.
3. You don't. But, if The Chief has been involved in your case I would suggest if any officer pursued what may be regarded as a vendetta against you then they would be foolish (to say the least).
Red 4 said:
2. The truth ? Like I said, try not to get hung up on principles - no matter how difficult that is.
Remember this one - courts of law are just that - courts of LAW. They sre not, necessarily, courts of justice. That principle always served me well.
I could not get out of bed if I did not think that law and justice coincide in more cases than they do not (but see above for a case I am involved in in which law and justice part company). In criminal law, I guess that the number of cases in which law and justice are not coincident may be greater than in civil law (but I still subscribe to the ("better that 100 guilty men...etc" idea). Remember this one - courts of law are just that - courts of LAW. They sre not, necessarily, courts of justice. That principle always served me well.
What is your take on this as a police officer? In your career, on balance, have you seen justice done more often than not, or do the bad guys get away more often than they really should?
10 Pence Short said:
I disagree with you there. It is not for the IPCC to inform you of procedure outwith their own remit. A judicial review would by its nature be such a thing.
I dug out the booklet COM/43 dated April 2010, the last two lines on page two states 'The IPCC is an independent organisation and its final decisions cannot be overruled except by a court of law.'They could have asterixed (BTW you've three months to do that, just as we don't have consider your appeal if we receive it after 28 days as stated on page 5). Page 6 says you can contact CAB or a legal advisor.
It's not in their interest to tell people a challenge via a court of law must be done within 3 months is it?
Breadvan72 said:
What is your take on this as a police officer? In your career, on balance, have you seen justice done more often than not, or do the bad guys get away more often than they really should?
On balance I've seen justice done more often than not - but not always. I've also seen alot of game playing. Sometimes the best player wins. That has nothing to do with justice.
As far as do the bad guys get away more often than not - no. There's a saying that "they always come again". IME they do. Sooner or later if they continue to commit offences they will be caught and convicted.
I know this post will come across, on balance, as negative but I've also seen huge injustices. I won't go into the things I've seen and experienced but, in summary, if you ask me if justice exists I'd say sometimes - for the majority of the time, if pushed.
Perhaps I'm jaded/ tainted/ unlucky or whatever - but I have seen alot of the darker side of life. That's probably rubbed off on me but I have also seen the reality of some peoples lives and how the system has failed them. Unfortunately, that's something you can't really forget.
The system is not perfect - no system is. On balance, the system is weighted towards the defendant but as you say, some coppers are b
ds and some lawyers are shysters. Maybe that's the reason it is what it is Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 2nd April 22:58
Breadvan72 said:
Despite all of that you appear from your posts here to have remained balanced and fair minded and even, perhaps, very slightly optimistic. Am I wrong? If you are still in, please don't hurry to retire!
Yep, medically retired as a result of injuries received in the execution of duty.Basically, I'm knackered. Mentally (PTSD) and physically (spinal injury).
If you want examples of real injustice look no further than how "The Police" treat officers who have been injured doing their job. I am but one of many.
But that's another story.
I have some work experience in that regard, and agree that the treatment of injured officers can be grim. I have also seen some bad stuff when internal affairs decide to nail someone. I admire many officers I have met at various junior and middle ranks (the most impressive copper I have met was (and maybe still is) a DS in the Met - an old school thief taker), but the senior officers I have met through work I have found to be appalling careerists and politicos who hang their troops out to dry when it suits them to do so.
Breadvan72 said:
Ah, the great Mitchell myth...His team will get a huge chunk of fees, I.e., all those incurred before the deadline for service of the budget.
I had an 'interesting' 2hours on Jackson reforms today.
Frankly, it isn't that hard to submit a cost budget on time.
There was a strong argument that the courts had been too lax, allowing relief from sanctions too often, and that this was beginning to both cost a lot of money and clog up the courts to unacceptable levels.
The Jackson reforms seem to have been interpreted at almost 180 degrees to the previous position, which has led to what appear to be perverse results.
The balance is hopefully somewhere in the middle.
You can look at it in two ways, of course; on one hand it seems disproportionate to have a high value and/or high importance case struck out for missing a procedural deadline. On the other, if the case is so important, why are basic deadlines being missed without forewarning or prior application?
The Jackson reforms seem to have been interpreted at almost 180 degrees to the previous position, which has led to what appear to be perverse results.
The balance is hopefully somewhere in the middle.
You can look at it in two ways, of course; on one hand it seems disproportionate to have a high value and/or high importance case struck out for missing a procedural deadline. On the other, if the case is so important, why are basic deadlines being missed without forewarning or prior application?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff