Pushed someone a few times - Assault?
Discussion
daveinaravecave said:
Yes, and we have a serving police officer who seemingly would be happy to follow it up.
You mean follow up the criminal damage? Or the assault? Because both, being recordable crimes and arrestable offences would be followed up by any officer given it to deal with. But good input.
La Liga said:
daveinaravecave said:
Yes, and we have a serving police officer who seemingly would be happy to follow it up.
Not doing so (if there's a complaint) sounds like a good way to receive a final warning to me. No thanks. It depends at which stage the balance of probabilities is reached. If someone calls up and a few sequences go on a log, then after a discussion with an officer the caller doesn't wish to complain or provide further information then I'd argue no crime needs to be recorded. Especially since the suspect won't be spoken to.
He didn't look like this, did he?
La Liga said:
It depends at which stage the balance of probabilities is reached. If someone calls up and a few sequences go on a log, then after a discussion with an officer the caller doesn't wish to complain or provide further information then I'd argue no crime needs to be recorded.
Only way this wouldnt be recorded is if he doesnt report it - if he rings in and says hes been assaulted then it'll have to be recorded. Balance of probabilities comes into play when establishing whether its a crime in law and not whether it happened or not.If you've been honest with your initial post (and I don't for a second think you haven't been) then I can't see this going anywhere, I wouldn't push your luck too many times though as before long you'll do it to the wrong person who'll a) 'push' you back big time, b) report you. I'd almost say the most annoying thing for you is that I wouldn't push to claim for the damage to your car!
Bigends said:
Only way this wouldnt be recorded is if he doesnt report it - if he rings in and says hes been assaulted then it'll have to be recorded. Balance of probabilities comes into play when establishing whether its a crime in law and not whether it happened or not.
An NSIR incident will be created and receive it's opening classification/s (which may be different from the closing one/s). The balance of probabilities dictates whether a crime is recorded on the incident or not according to the rules of HOCR / NCRS based on the information provided.
Here's Derbyshire's policy on the matter:
5.3(A) isn't just the initial superficial NSIR information, but what develops afterwards, too. I'm not talking about whether something (may) have occurred or not, just the lack of information that would keep it below the balance of probabilities e.g. not speaking to the suspect because the person reporting wants no further action. There's no way to negate self-defence and other matters which may make the force lawful.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 9th September 23:31
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
Only way this wouldnt be recorded is if he doesnt report it - if he rings in and says hes been assaulted then it'll have to be recorded. Balance of probabilities comes into play when establishing whether its a crime in law and not whether it happened or not.
An NSIR incident will be recorded and receive it's opening classification/s (which may be different from the closing one/s). The balance of probabilities dictates whether a crime is recorded on the incident or not according to the rules of HOCR / NCRS based on the information provided.
Here's Derbyshire's policy on the matter:
5.3(A) isn't just the initial superficial NSIR information, but what develops afterwards, too.
and the counting rules state -
WHETHER TO RECORD
 AN INCIDENT WILL BE RECORDED AS A CRIME (NOTIFIABLE OFFENCE)
1. FOR OFFENCES AGAINST AN IDENTIFIED VICTIM IF, ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY:
(A) THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS REPORTED AMOUNT TO A CRIME DEFINED BY LAW (THE
POLICE WILL DETERMINE THIS, BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND
COUNTING RULES), AND
(B) THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
Yes, like I said. The balance of probabilities i.e. more likely than not.
My hypothetical scenario was that the informant did not want to take the matter further. Therefore the suspect won't be spoken to. Mens rea, self-defence, S.3 are all possibilities that won't be explored and in the absence of exploring them I wouldn't think it more likely than not an assault had occurred.
My hypothetical scenario was that the informant did not want to take the matter further. Therefore the suspect won't be spoken to. Mens rea, self-defence, S.3 are all possibilities that won't be explored and in the absence of exploring them I wouldn't think it more likely than not an assault had occurred.
La Liga said:
Yes, like I said. The balance of probabilities i.e. more likely than not.
My hypothetical scenario was that the informant did not want to take the matter further. Therefore the suspect won't be spoken to. Mens rea, self-defence, S.3 are all possibilities that won't be explored and in the absence of exploring them I wouldn't think it more likely than not an assault had occurred.
How can you say that when mateys rung in and says hes been assaulted - how can you say it probably didnt happen - what information would that be based on. Police are obliged to record the allegation unless theres credible evidence it never occured and not using balance of probabilities. Why do defences need to be explored if the victim isnt taking matters further. Record, finalise and move on to the next crime.My hypothetical scenario was that the informant did not want to take the matter further. Therefore the suspect won't be spoken to. Mens rea, self-defence, S.3 are all possibilities that won't be explored and in the absence of exploring them I wouldn't think it more likely than not an assault had occurred.
Bigends said:
How can you say that when mateys rung in and says hes been assaulted - how can you say it probably didnt happen - what information would that be based on. Police are obliged to record the allegation unless theres credible evidence it never occured and not using balance of probabilities.
That's not what is says. It says, and we've both quoted it, it will be recorded 'on the balance of probabilities' if it amounts to a crime defined by law (5.3(A) Derbyshire policy) . The 'evidence to the contrary' is only relevant if (A) is satisfied. Bigends said:
Why do defences need to be explored if the victim isnt taking matters further.
They don't. But without negating them when they are so important to the offence, can we necessarily say an assault occurred? Certainly not in a lot of circumstances and ones where the CP wishes to take NFA. This one may be different and clear-cut on CCTV, but recording without thinking is stupid. We're on the same page when it comes to bent recording and distorting, but I can't stand a lack of a critical, proportionate approach. Bigends said:
Record, finalise and move on to the next crime.
If I can legitimately not spend 20 minutes waiting to get through to the cuts-savaged Crime Recording Bureau and then 10 minutes recording a S.39 (or ABH in the HOCR world 
), then I'd rather do that. The public would be amazed at this back-end b
ks and the amount of time spent on it. 
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
How can you say that when mateys rung in and says hes been assaulted - how can you say it probably didnt happen - what information would that be based on. Police are obliged to record the allegation unless theres credible evidence it never occured and not using balance of probabilities.
That's not what is says. It says, and we've both quoted it, it will be recorded 'on the balance of probabilities' if it amounts to a crime defined by law (5.3(A) Derbyshire policy) . The 'evidence to the contrary' is only relevant if (A) is satisfied. Bigends said:
Why do defences need to be explored if the victim isnt taking matters further.
They don't. But without negating them when they are so important to the offence, can we necessarily say an assault occurred? Certainly not in a lot of circumstances and ones where the CP wishes to take NFA. This one may be different and clear-cut on CCTV, but recording without thinking is stupid. We're on the same page when it comes to bent recording and distorting, but I can't stand a lack of a critical, proportionate approach. Bigends said:
Record, finalise and move on to the next crime.
If I can legitimately not spend 20 minutes waiting to get through to the cuts-savaged Crime Recording Bureau and then 10 minutes recording a S.39 (or ABH in the HOCR world ), then I'd rather do that. The public would be amazed at this back-end b
ks and the amount of time spent on it. Exactly - pushing someone is a crime defined by law - so record it. Cops in my lot input their own crimes so no waiting needed. Youre not investigating the crime so why explore defences? The rules are clear - record - you cant pick and choose what you want to record - believe me I spend 8hrs a day applying the rules.
Bigends said:
Exactly - pushing someone is a crime defined by law - so record it. Cops in my lot input their own crimes so no waiting needed. Youre not investigating the crime so why explore defences? The rules are clear - record - you cant pick and choose what you want to record - believe me I spend 8hrs a day applying the rules.
It's not exploring defences, it's considering the lack of information required conclude a crime has occurred or not. The wording says "the police will determine this (whether to record a crime or not) based on their knowledge of law", not "they'll robotically record everything from about 20 words on an incident".
May I ask which force you're in which has officers recording their own crimes? That seems like a forward-step.
In isolation the rules quoted above seem fairly straightforward; if someone reports a set of circumstances that more likely than not mean a recognised crime has been committed, and there is no evidence to the contrary, it ought to be recorded as a crime.
Whether or not the complainant wishes to take the matter further or it would achieve a conviction if tried are irrelevant, according to the regs. as quoted.
All they ask is "is it more likely than not what the person describes is a crime?".
Whether or not the complainant wishes to take the matter further or it would achieve a conviction if tried are irrelevant, according to the regs. as quoted.
All they ask is "is it more likely than not what the person describes is a crime?".
Not legal advice, but advice based on common sense and experience; OP, you shouldn't have touched the guy. In fact you shouldn't have got out of your car. Once you put your hands on someone you've crossed the line. You've escalated a verbal altercation into a physical one. If Mr viz had turned round and slapped you upside the head, he'd have a good case for self-defence. You, on the other hand, by deliberately chasing and making physical contact would have had no such excuse.
Not trolling btw, just pointing out that whatever the provocation, or how heated things become, once you put your hands on someone you've lost any moral (and possibly legal) high ground, and put yourself firmly in the wrong.
Not trolling btw, just pointing out that whatever the provocation, or how heated things become, once you put your hands on someone you've lost any moral (and possibly legal) high ground, and put yourself firmly in the wrong.
Edited by johnny fotze on Wednesday 10th September 08:29
tenpenceshort said:
Whether or not the complainant wishes to take the matter further or it would achieve a conviction if tried are irrelevant, according to the regs. as quoted.
All they ask is "is it more likely than not what the person describes is a crime?".
The conviction threshold is, of course, irrelevant, but I disagree with whether or not they wish to take it further is. That changes the information being presented and offered. It depends on the circumstances and risk-based judgements need to be made, too. All they ask is "is it more likely than not what the person describes is a crime?".
I could only imagine the carnage if every minor public order offence were recorded off a few words taken down by call handler. "Yeah, we have 900 incidents outstanding as officers have been sat in all day criming 500 section 5 public order crimes because a call handler has written 20 words from someone who has called up for some nonsense."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff