In court on Wednesday, this should be fun!

[Terzo123]

Justin P1 you are correct it is the CPS who decided to drop the case, i was trying to keep my post as short as possible, and i believe most people would have known what i was getting at.
Again your correct with regards to my statistics, as per my explanation, i was trying to keep my post short and couldn't be bothered to apply for the correct figures through the freedom of information act.

But i bet my guestimate wasn't too far off

However i believe my point is still valid and in my opinion correct. Hands free kits, number of mobile phones, all irrelevant. The word of two cops over the OP would have been sufficient. The CPS i'm sure have bigger fish to fry and don't have the resources or time to deal with such matters.

However good on the OP for sticking to his guns and having the case dropped.

[JustinP1]

Terzo123 said:

Justin P1 you are correct it is the CPS who decided to drop the case, i was trying to keep my post as short as possible, and i believe most people would have known what i was getting at.
Again your correct with regards to my statistics, as per my explanation, i was trying to keep my post short and couldn't be bothered to apply for the correct figures through the freedom of information act.

But i bet my guestimate wasn't too far off

However i believe my point is still valid and in my opinion correct. Hands free kits, number of mobile phones, all irrelevant. The word of two cops over the OP would have been sufficient. The CPS i'm sure have bigger fish to fry and don't have the resources or time to deal with such matters.

However good on the OP for sticking to his guns and having the case dropped.

Well thats the issue. Threads on here are often 'searched for' when people are in a jam, before they ask for help, it's useful to keep it factual, or clearly make something an 'opinion'.

With regard to the two coppers, in this case there was only one who gave a statement, as far as I have read. Indeed, even that is enough to convict. However, that doesn't mean that always happens, as the police are not always right.

Secondly, it is my opinion and experience that they certainly do take these cases as far as court. The only reason they may back down will be at the last second, if they think they cannot win. I say this from experience to disprove another point. I was taken to court on the evidence of three police officers who accused me of running a red light. The CPS really did put their heart into it as it of course meant taking three officers from duty. I disproved the case and represented myself. The judge believed me, and discounted the evidence of two of the police officers.

The case came down to two versions of events the judge believed, so it was a 'his word against mine' situation. In that situation, reasonable doubt remains. With regard to the presence of a hands-free kit, phone records etc, these are also very useful in introducing 'reasonable doubt'. What we have in these cases is purely visual evidence - something which certainly can be wrong. If you can bring circumstantial evidence, which although does not directly disprove you of doing something, this is at least evidence that what you are accused of does not make as much sense as the police officer makes out...

[RtdRacer]

vonhosen said:

Battenburg Bob said:

Without commenting on this case, I'd like to clarify two thigs.

1. Magistrates often ignore the evidence of Officers and find for the defence.

2. Mobile phone tickets don not count in any way shape or form to 'crime' targets. It's not another crime cleared, detected or anything else.

If the OP has been wronged by an Officers (probably honestly held) mistake, then fight it in court. That's exactly what they are there for.

Very well said. And the courts do a bloody good job of it. If we have a decent upstanding member of the public who flat out contradicts a copper, then that is very often the case not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having said that, police IMO are usually trustworthy in court. You play what you see in front of you.

But I resent enormously the implication from some of the idiots on here that it's just a massive stitchup. There is no collusion between the local BiB and the Bench - certainly not where I live.

[forza whites]

RtdRacer said:

vonhosen said:

Battenburg Bob said:

Without commenting on this case, I'd like to clarify two thigs.

1. Magistrates often ignore the evidence of Officers and find for the defence.

2. Mobile phone tickets don not count in any way shape or form to 'crime' targets. It's not another crime cleared, detected or anything else.

If the OP has been wronged by an Officers (probably honestly held) mistake, then fight it in court. That's exactly what they are there for.

Very well said. And the courts do a bloody good job of it. If we have a decent upstanding member of the public who flat out contradicts a copper, then that is very often the case not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having said that, police IMO are usually trustworthy in court. You play what you see in front of you.

But I resent enormously the implication from some of the idiots on here that it's just a massive stitchup. There is no collusion between the local BiB and the Bench - certainly not where I live.

If indeed there was, you are hardly about to come on here and advertise it?

Most Magistrates are dodering old farts, who most of the time are barely awake, most of them highly uneducated, get directed 100% by the clerk of the court, who themselves spend their day with the Prosecution....and YES at times believe wholesale coppers telling lies....

[JustinP1]

Holy moly Forza!

You are jumping in with two feet, two days too late!

BTW I know two magistrates personally. Both are decent and honest members of the community, and not doddery at all.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

forza whites said:

RtdRacer said:

vonhosen said:

Battenburg Bob said:

Without commenting on this case, I'd like to clarify two thigs.

1. Magistrates often ignore the evidence of Officers and find for the defence.

2. Mobile phone tickets don not count in any way shape or form to 'crime' targets. It's not another crime cleared, detected or anything else.

If the OP has been wronged by an Officers (probably honestly held) mistake, then fight it in court. That's exactly what they are there for.

Very well said. And the courts do a bloody good job of it. If we have a decent upstanding member of the public who flat out contradicts a copper, then that is very often the case not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having said that, police IMO are usually trustworthy in court. You play what you see in front of you.

But I resent enormously the implication from some of the idiots on here that it's just a massive stitchup. There is no collusion between the local BiB and the Bench - certainly not where I live.

If indeed there was, you are hardly about to come on here and advertise it?

Most Magistrates are dodering old farts, who most of the time are barely awake, most of them highly uneducated, get directed 100% by the clerk of the court, who themselves spend their day with the Prosecution....and YES at times believe wholesale coppers telling lies....

My experience of clerks of the court is far different. Many are known for being quite anti-police.

[forza whites]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

forza whites said:

RtdRacer said:

vonhosen said:

Battenburg Bob said:

Without commenting on this case, I'd like to clarify two thigs.

1. Magistrates often ignore the evidence of Officers and find for the defence.

2. Mobile phone tickets don not count in any way shape or form to 'crime' targets. It's not another crime cleared, detected or anything else.

If the OP has been wronged by an Officers (probably honestly held) mistake, then fight it in court. That's exactly what they are there for.

Very well said. And the courts do a bloody good job of it. If we have a decent upstanding member of the public who flat out contradicts a copper, then that is very often the case not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having said that, police IMO are usually trustworthy in court. You play what you see in front of you.

But I resent enormously the implication from some of the idiots on here that it's just a massive stitchup. There is no collusion between the local BiB and the Bench - certainly not where I live.

If indeed there was, you are hardly about to come on here and advertise it?

Most Magistrates are dodering old farts, who most of the time are barely awake, most of them highly uneducated, get directed 100% by the clerk of the court, who themselves spend their day with the Prosecution....and YES at times believe wholesale coppers telling lies....

My experience of clerks of the court is far different. Many are known for being quite anti-police.

Exactly! Respect your experience. The whole point of any forum is for differing people to discuss their own experiences/views etc. My above point was actually relating to the 'Family' division of a certain Magistrates Court, where a formal complaint (Lord Chancellors Dept) was upheld.....

[Battenburg Bob]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

forza whites said:

RtdRacer said:

vonhosen said:

Battenburg Bob said:

Without commenting on this case, I'd like to clarify two thigs.

1. Magistrates often ignore the evidence of Officers and find for the defence.

2. Mobile phone tickets don not count in any way shape or form to 'crime' targets. It's not another crime cleared, detected or anything else.

If the OP has been wronged by an Officers (probably honestly held) mistake, then fight it in court. That's exactly what they are there for.

Very well said. And the courts do a bloody good job of it. If we have a decent upstanding member of the public who flat out contradicts a copper, then that is very often the case not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having said that, police IMO are usually trustworthy in court. You play what you see in front of you.

But I resent enormously the implication from some of the idiots on here that it's just a massive stitchup. There is no collusion between the local BiB and the Bench - certainly not where I live.

If indeed there was, you are hardly about to come on here and advertise it?

Most Magistrates are dodering old farts, who most of the time are barely awake, most of them highly uneducated, get directed 100% by the clerk of the court, who themselves spend their day with the Prosecution....and YES at times believe wholesale coppers telling lies....

My experience of clerks of the court is far different. Many are known for being quite anti-police.

But real life experience isn't nearly as much fun as 'lying Police in bed with Court Clerk'........unless you're the Court clerk.

[streaky]

Battenburg Bob said:

But real life experience isn't nearly as much fun as 'lying Police in bed with Court Clerk'........unless you're the Court clerk.

Mind you, "Police lying in bed with Court Clerk" might be more fun ... for both - Streaky

[Jasandjules]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

My experience of clerks of the court is far different. Many are known for being quite anti-police.

Mine is (though far less than yours, I bailed out early enough) that the clerks are very pro-police, and have already decided the guilt and sentence of the accused before the CPS brief starts to read out the details. I've been in court and watched the clerk advising the bench that 3 months would be a suitable term, despite the minor detail that the accused hadn't been brought up from the cells at that point......

However, I'm glad for the OP< though as someone else mentioned, I do hope you're asking for costs (days wage lost etc).

[forza whites]

Jasandjules said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

My experience of clerks of the court is far different. Many are known for being quite anti-police.

Mine is (though far less than yours, I bailed out early enough) that the clerks are very pro-police, and have already decided the guilt and sentence of the accused before the CPS brief starts to read out the details. I've been in court and watched the clerk advising the bench that 3 months would be a suitable term, despite the minor detail that the accused hadn't been brought up from the cells at that point......

However, I'm glad for the OP< though as someone else mentioned, I do hope you're asking for costs (days wage lost etc).

J and J
My own experiences also concur with yours. I once saw by accident some notes made by the Clerk of the Court regarding recommended fine/sentence for an alleged speeding offence, BEFORE a verdict was reached. For me (at that point) it underlined the 'production line' approach to Guilty until proven Innocent. Your above example does not surprise me whatsoever. Sad state of affairs in a so called developed nation.

[JustinP1]

Jasandjules said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

My experience of clerks of the court is far different. Many are known for being quite anti-police.

Mine is (though far less than yours, I bailed out early enough) that the clerks are very pro-police, and have already decided the guilt and sentence of the accused before the CPS brief starts to read out the details. I've been in court and watched the clerk advising the bench that 3 months would be a suitable term, despite the minor detail that the accused hadn't been brought up from the cells at that point......

However, I'm glad for the OP< though as someone else mentioned, I do hope you're asking for costs (days wage lost etc).

I have seen that too.

Out of the three I have been in court with, the first one was like you have described. Even when I was asking for advice, she looked at me whilst I asked the first two syllables of the question, and then looked down to 'finish he paperwork' whilst I was still asking her... I thought it was generally rude, and did not fill me with confidence that I was getting a complete answer.

My second experience was that a clerk spent a good half hour on the phone with me before a case to explain the process. Very helpful. When I arrived in court, another clerk, who was to oversee my case, came out to find me as he found I was representing myself to speak with me privately about my options - completely unprompted - and was again very fair and helpful.

My third experience was that the clerk had no direct contact with me, but in the half-empty courtroom just before the judges were to arrive she had a conversation where it was obvious I was the subject with the CPS barrister - in Welsh! My barrister thought it was rude, and I am sure Nick Freeman would have had the case dropped within five minutes of the judges arriving on that...

In conclusion, I am guessing the majority of the cases clerks see are 'open and shut' paperwork type issues, or someone pleading guilty. Someone pleading not guilty is either a welcome relief or just prolonging their drudgery, depending on their particular mindset!