Police dropping people off in the middle of nowhere?
Discussion
Was listening to one of the young lads from my office telling the funny story of his weekend camping in Wales, but feel the need to query the legality of one aspect of his story.
Long story short: He's a Scouser, and he went camping to the Welsh coast with about 7 of his mates for a weekend piss up. On the Saturday night, the caught a train from where they were staying into a town so they could go to a nightclub.
After midnight, whilst in the town, one of them got into a slight scrap with a local, and the 7 of them were rounded up by the Police and it was suggested that they leave the town to avoid getting into any more trouble.
The lads agreed, and the police asked them where they were staying, and the name and location of the campsite was given, and the police told them to all get into two police cars and they would drive them back to their campsite to make sure they got back there.
They didn't drive them back to the campsite at all. They drove them out into the middle of nowhere and cheerfully announced "you're here" and of course being drunk and totally unfamiliar of the area, the lads just got out and the police drove off.
Luckily one of them still had some battery left on their phone and they could look on google maps to find out which direction they need to walk, but it took them almost 2 hours of brisk walking to get back to their campsite.
Now part of me finds this quite an amusing punishment dished out by the police, and it serves them right for getting plastered and brawling with the locals, but the Health and Safety side of me is slightly suprised that the police would do this considering the potential harm that could come to a load of people who were drunk, totally unfamiliar with an area, and left to stagger for nearly two hours at 2-4am on country lanes.
As the story was being told, another guy in the office burst out laughing as the same had apparently been done to him years ago by the police, but in a different part of the country. So it seems not uncommon?
Any thoughts?
Long story short: He's a Scouser, and he went camping to the Welsh coast with about 7 of his mates for a weekend piss up. On the Saturday night, the caught a train from where they were staying into a town so they could go to a nightclub.
After midnight, whilst in the town, one of them got into a slight scrap with a local, and the 7 of them were rounded up by the Police and it was suggested that they leave the town to avoid getting into any more trouble.
The lads agreed, and the police asked them where they were staying, and the name and location of the campsite was given, and the police told them to all get into two police cars and they would drive them back to their campsite to make sure they got back there.
They didn't drive them back to the campsite at all. They drove them out into the middle of nowhere and cheerfully announced "you're here" and of course being drunk and totally unfamiliar of the area, the lads just got out and the police drove off.
Luckily one of them still had some battery left on their phone and they could look on google maps to find out which direction they need to walk, but it took them almost 2 hours of brisk walking to get back to their campsite.
Now part of me finds this quite an amusing punishment dished out by the police, and it serves them right for getting plastered and brawling with the locals, but the Health and Safety side of me is slightly suprised that the police would do this considering the potential harm that could come to a load of people who were drunk, totally unfamiliar with an area, and left to stagger for nearly two hours at 2-4am on country lanes.
As the story was being told, another guy in the office burst out laughing as the same had apparently been done to him years ago by the police, but in a different part of the country. So it seems not uncommon?
Any thoughts?
Edited by NinjaPower on Friday 31st July 12:27
It's Ok until it goes wrong - albeit this isn't quite the same: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/lo...
The farcical prosecution of the officers was subject to a 'half time' ruling by the judge IIRC in the above matter which caused the case to be discontinued.
The farcical prosecution of the officers was subject to a 'half time' ruling by the judge IIRC in the above matter which caused the case to be discontinued.
Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
ikarl said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
speedyguy said:
Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
Some police cars are not appropriate for motorways/fast roads. The blue lights are inadequate and using an inappropriate car could potentially cause more harm than good. I would say it's a judgement call for the officer. The calling in the wrong location was poor, but if the cop wasn't local, perhaps understandable. Surprised it wasn't given a grade 1 response though. Then again..it is the Mail.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...
But surely all police cars are equipped with hazard lights i would have thought which is all a normal MOP would use when on the hard shoulder which I'm pretty sure that motorway has, then all the added 'visibility' of any extra lights available and contact with a police control room who could confirm signals would be set (albeit in completely the the wrong location) by the local RCC.
As noted it's a judgement call and 'a CBA dealing' attitude sometimes has unintended consequences which could have similarly occured in the OP's post.
Martin4x4 said:
Red Devil said:
Unless anyone on here was in court throughout the trial to listen to the prosecution evidence then it is impossible to make an informed comment. The operative word there is safely. For a judge to stop the trial at that stage prior to any defence submissions suggest that the prosecution's case was going nowhere and had a guilty verdict nevertheless have been been obtained an appeal would almost certainly have succeeded.
What would be interesting to know is what disciplinary sanctions were applied to the officers concerned. I have found a source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59LkBQAAQBAJ&a... - which suggests Sgt Hickinbottom retired in 2014, nine years after the trial, so his career does not seem to have been too severely affected (the book mentioned was published earlier this year).
However that doesn't explain why bringing the prosecution was farcical. It is harder to imagine how the officers behaviour could be any more negligent without becoming out-rightly deliberately criminal. It appears to be a case of some rouge officers punishing her for being out of order PITA.What would be interesting to know is what disciplinary sanctions were applied to the officers concerned. I have found a source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=59LkBQAAQBAJ&a... - which suggests Sgt Hickinbottom retired in 2014, nine years after the trial, so his career does not seem to have been too severely affected (the book mentioned was published earlier this year).
I did see that statement by the judge, and that is what I find farcical in the face of all the other evidence presented in the article. These decisions by Judges to negate the jury are a farcical abuse of justice. The Jury did sit through all the evidence, the verdict should be their decision.
Martin4x4 said:
Why do you consider the prosecution farcical?
After reading this more detailed account, it seem to me that it was the judges decision that was farcical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1488220/Pol...
Yes, that article gives no indications as to why the Judge may have made his decision... After reading this more detailed account, it seem to me that it was the judges decision that was farcical.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1488220/Pol...
Defence QC said:
"The death of any 25-year-old is a tragedy. Michelle Wood never complained of abnormality to the three officers at the time of her release. The three defendants were never told by the search officers that Miss Wood had these drugs and it was accepted that Sgt Hickinbottom was not under a duty to check the work of others." She felt the public would remember the graphic terms in which the case was opened to the jury, adding: "It was suggested that three police officers released Michelle Wood in a remote location when she was cold, wet and demonstrating clear signs of mental confusion. Each of these three propositions has been shown to be either wrong or wholly misleading. Miss Wood had in fact been driven 35 miles to the edge of Grimsby. She was wearing several layers of dry clothing under her trousers. Her outer clothing was damp, a fact not communicated to the defendant officers. It was an ordinary January night at about 8.30pm. There was considerable evidence from her sister that there was nothing unusual about her mental state on release. In fact she was described as cock-a-hoop. Her apparent mental confusion after she was dropped off was wholly attributable to her abuse of the drug Procyclidine, removed later from her possessions."
Eclassy said:
In the Michelle Wood case it is unbelieveable that they were found not guilty. The police are not obliged to take anyone home but it cant be right that a policeman can drop you in the middle of nowhere when they didnt necessarily have to take you anywhere.
It wasn't the 'middle of no where' - you should read up on the circumstances more. Then again, your reading / comprehension skills aren't equal to that of a basic report from the ES, so I shouldn't expect you to find any information on the Wood matter.
Eclassy said:
In the Evening Standard yesterday was a story about how a 17 year old with mental health issues was chased by police into a river and they all stood aside and watched as he drowned.
Met statement said:
East London Commander Lucy D'Orsi wrote: "Officers first tried to use a life aid and throw lines to him before an officer, who then needed assistance himself, entered dangerous water to try and safe Jack's life.
How biased must you be to completely ignore the Met's statement on the matter? And how stupid to mention the article which people can simply search and contradict your conclusion? The kid was a high risk missing person and they've tried to get hold of him to return him to somewhere safe. Unfortunately, he's gone into the river and they've tried to save him. Sadists, indeed. Please let us know of your made-up experiences with the police in a river or that of your mate's.
Eclassy said:
Stuff about the water incident.
Yes, that's the alternative account/s. So there are different accounts which are quite different. We all know how reliable non-expert witness recollection is in a stressful situation and how time isn't over-estimated. For example, someone having their window banged upon by a man who then walks away. An expert witness would probably see that as a little anti-social, a non-expert thinks it's attempt murder. Why did you conclude one was right when you have no idea as to what actually happened and when faced with different account? Is it because you only presented the side which suited you.
I'm sure the Met have lied and completely made-up an officer went in risking his / her own life. They'd take the chance no one would be using a phone camera.
Martin4x4 said:
@La Liga
Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.
Yes, they said something different. What they said didn't amount to a case to answer. Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.
A Judge has an obligation to get rid of any case which isn't fit for purpose. That is the CPS's job which they get right most of the time when deciding whether or not to charge. Saying a Judge getting rid of a case is subverting justice is like saying the CPS do when they discontinue a case. They're both doing the same thing when they make the assessment if there's a case to answer / realistic prospect of conviction.
The CPS can / could have appealed the Judge's decision. They chose not to.
Eclassy said:
Officer risked his life.....hahahahahaha
10/15 minutes after the boy was last seen. He even had the time to take off his clothes.
I believe independent witnesses over the Met's spin doctors. Thank you.
So you know for a fact an officer didn't go in and get into difficulties himself? The Met have just totally created that out of thin air. 10/15 minutes after the boy was last seen. He even had the time to take off his clothes.
I believe independent witnesses over the Met's spin doctors. Thank you.
Eclassy said:
What efforts?
And according to the Met: Met statement said:
East London Commander Lucy D'Orsi wrote: "Officers first tried to use a life aid and throw lines to him before an officer, who then needed assistance himself, entered dangerous water to try and safe Jack's life.
You disregard this because you don't like what it says. Eclassy said:
I would run as fast as I can if I see NINE gang members running after me. I wont be jumping in the river though as elf&safety means as a non swimmer, I will be left to drown.
Nine gang members AKA police officers trying to search and locate someone who was classed as high risk and missing. Are you also saying any time someone jumps in a river the police should automatically follow?
Hopefully next time someone like you will be alongside to help. We need to bravery of someone who gets scared when someone knocks on their car window
Martin4x4 said:
@La Liga
Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.
It would be interesting to know what would happen if the Jury disagreed/refused to accept a Judges direction (has it ever happened). Would the Judge be obliged to recluse themselves. We occasionally see the opposite, Jury nullification in trails like Spy Catcher, Clive Pointing, Oz, Penguin for example.
From memory, there was no jury nullification in Ponting or the Oz case. The Ponting case is arguably an example of a jury bringing in a verdict that is legally perverse but is morally correct (ie not guilty when, on the law, Ponting was guilty) . In the Oz case, the jury convicted (helped by a rather biased Judge), and the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions, IIRC.Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.
It would be interesting to know what would happen if the Jury disagreed/refused to accept a Judges direction (has it ever happened). Would the Judge be obliged to recluse themselves. We occasionally see the opposite, Jury nullification in trails like Spy Catcher, Clive Pointing, Oz, Penguin for example.
As for Spycatcher, do you mean the Australian or the English version? I was involved in the English Spycatcher cases and there weren't any jury trials that I can recall. The cases were all civil cases determined by Judges, not juries.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff