Anatomy of a 'Nick'
Discussion
I continually read comments on this board that attribute the complete criminal justice system to the failures or vehemence of the police. It is clear that many do not know or understand how it works. This is a simple run down.
1. THE POLICE are the collectors of evidence who collate information into a file for consideration by another body. That being the CPS. They also have responsibility to provide a social service to society where the needy can get 24/7 help or guidance.
Police may instigate the evidence themselves by what they see whilst on patrol e.g. traffic infringements or they may be called to the scene of a crime in progress or after it has occurred.
2. THE CPS are the prosecuting body who interrogate the written and physical evidence collected by the police and decide whether a prim a fascia case has been made and whether there is evidence to support that at a court. If that is the case, they instigate proceedings through either summons or charging processes.
3. THE COURTS are the tribunal who examine the evidence under conditions where witnesses are in attendance so they can ask questions and seek the truth in a situation. Punishments are handed out by Judges and Magistrates along the guidelines put out by the Home Office.
The police do not punish anyone (unless they happen to be a police officer on a discipline hearing). They do not fine people as they have no remit or authority in law to do so.
Fixed penalty fines are a procedure for the court system to deal with an allegation on a fast track basis and therefore limit the punishments. The subject who receives a fixed penalty fine has a choice to accept the system and pay the fine to the court or challenge the evidence and go through the prosecution procedure.
Many posts on this board attribute the whole criminal justice system and its failures to the actions or inaction of the police.
The Police do make their fair share of cock ups within that regarding evidence and its provision to the rest of the system but after a prosecution has been laid and it gets to sentencing, the police have absolutely no say in the outcome.
The whole system relies on one authority relying on the work of the other to succeed. When large separate organisations work together to one aim, it is hardly surprising that on occasions, things fall off the end. It is not always the fault of the police!
1. THE POLICE are the collectors of evidence who collate information into a file for consideration by another body. That being the CPS. They also have responsibility to provide a social service to society where the needy can get 24/7 help or guidance.
Police may instigate the evidence themselves by what they see whilst on patrol e.g. traffic infringements or they may be called to the scene of a crime in progress or after it has occurred.
2. THE CPS are the prosecuting body who interrogate the written and physical evidence collected by the police and decide whether a prim a fascia case has been made and whether there is evidence to support that at a court. If that is the case, they instigate proceedings through either summons or charging processes.
3. THE COURTS are the tribunal who examine the evidence under conditions where witnesses are in attendance so they can ask questions and seek the truth in a situation. Punishments are handed out by Judges and Magistrates along the guidelines put out by the Home Office.
The police do not punish anyone (unless they happen to be a police officer on a discipline hearing). They do not fine people as they have no remit or authority in law to do so.
Fixed penalty fines are a procedure for the court system to deal with an allegation on a fast track basis and therefore limit the punishments. The subject who receives a fixed penalty fine has a choice to accept the system and pay the fine to the court or challenge the evidence and go through the prosecution procedure.
Many posts on this board attribute the whole criminal justice system and its failures to the actions or inaction of the police.
The Police do make their fair share of cock ups within that regarding evidence and its provision to the rest of the system but after a prosecution has been laid and it gets to sentencing, the police have absolutely no say in the outcome.
The whole system relies on one authority relying on the work of the other to succeed. When large separate organisations work together to one aim, it is hardly surprising that on occasions, things fall off the end. It is not always the fault of the police!
Mg6b said:
It is not always the fault of the police!
Which means it sometimes is.And it is important to remember that the decision that puts you into the whole sequence of organisations and events outlined in the your original post is usually/sometimes made by the BiB at the sharp end. He/she decides a) I'm going to use my discretion here, have a few sharp/educational words, and that's that, OR b) you're going through the mill sunshine. This is why the police come in for so much stick sometimes, (rightly or wrongly), because often they have the power to decide if you are going to be exposed to the rest of the system.
PLEASE NOTE!!!
YES I know that sometimes circumstances mean that discretion can't be exercised.
YES I know that the rest of the system cocks up
BUT you can't deny that often the decision to put you through the mill is made by the front line BiB, sometimes on apparently arbitrary grounds. This is where the perception of lack of fairness stems from IMHO. And it is this that colours a lot of peoples views towards the police when it comes to considering the whole picture.
Edited by andmole on Saturday 5th January 14:11
The essence of discretion is that in cannot be institutionalised by procedure because then, of course, it is no longer exercised at the officer's discretion. So it can be construed at arbitary. Two incidents, the same set of circumstances, one officer reports and the other lets off with a caution. Whilst this might seem outrageous, it is normally only seen that way by just one of the two offenders. You cannot please all of the people. The only way out of this is to remove all discretion.
An officer can decide to report for summons rather than arrest, to delay service of a warrant, that sort of thing and I'm unaware of many complaints that have arisen in those circumstances. However, an officer has also the ability to stop further progress of the process in certain circumstances.
The theory is that it is an officer's duty to proceeed but that they can choose the option of caution, letting off, doing nothing at all which will then mean no further action will be taken against the offender. The officer cannot exercise his/her discretion to proceed as that is his/her duty. Once an officer has decided not to exercise his discretion then there are other instutions, as detailed above, which oversee the procedure. However, the CPS and the courts are governed by procedure, law and precedent. It is only the officer on the street who can just say, "Clear off." and leave it at that.
My force laid down guidelines for cautions. I was once approached by a DS for whom I had a great deal of respect, who asked me to step outside those guidelines for a chap arrested for burglary. This chap had previous dating back to pre PNC days but, although he had been 'clean' for some time, there was no way the guidelines could have been fitted around him. The DS was asking me to stick my neck out. I cautioned and I was approached by D&C to explain my reasoning. I said, "I exercised my discretion. My judgement if you wish." and left it at that.
I saw the chap some years later when he volunteered for an ID parade. He shook my hand and said that the caution was a changing point in his life and he'd sayed clean all that time. I feel really chuffed about what I did. However, what about the chap who had only committed half the burlaries this chap had? I bet he felt it unfair.
An officer can decide to report for summons rather than arrest, to delay service of a warrant, that sort of thing and I'm unaware of many complaints that have arisen in those circumstances. However, an officer has also the ability to stop further progress of the process in certain circumstances.
The theory is that it is an officer's duty to proceeed but that they can choose the option of caution, letting off, doing nothing at all which will then mean no further action will be taken against the offender. The officer cannot exercise his/her discretion to proceed as that is his/her duty. Once an officer has decided not to exercise his discretion then there are other instutions, as detailed above, which oversee the procedure. However, the CPS and the courts are governed by procedure, law and precedent. It is only the officer on the street who can just say, "Clear off." and leave it at that.
My force laid down guidelines for cautions. I was once approached by a DS for whom I had a great deal of respect, who asked me to step outside those guidelines for a chap arrested for burglary. This chap had previous dating back to pre PNC days but, although he had been 'clean' for some time, there was no way the guidelines could have been fitted around him. The DS was asking me to stick my neck out. I cautioned and I was approached by D&C to explain my reasoning. I said, "I exercised my discretion. My judgement if you wish." and left it at that.
I saw the chap some years later when he volunteered for an ID parade. He shook my hand and said that the caution was a changing point in his life and he'd sayed clean all that time. I feel really chuffed about what I did. However, what about the chap who had only committed half the burlaries this chap had? I bet he felt it unfair.
Given the apparent lack of understanding by the general public of the way in which the system works, myself included (e.g. accepting a caution means a criminal record?), and the decline of the exercise of discretion for whatever reason, would it not be simpler to completely dispense with these concepts and either charge or let go? Or are these options merely in place to simplify life for those operating the entire system?
Surely fairer for an accused to either plead guilty, or not guilty, rather than wasting time with members of the Police Service deciding how to proceed?
7.
Surely fairer for an accused to either plead guilty, or not guilty, rather than wasting time with members of the Police Service deciding how to proceed?
7.
Mg6b said:
It is not always the fault of the police!
Mgb6 said:
'The Police do make their fair share of cock ups within that regarding evidence and its provision to the rest of the system'
Penultimate paragraph
Penultimate paragraph
Andmole said:
Which means it sometimes is.
Andmole said:
And it is important to remember that the decision that puts you into the whole sequence of organisations and events outlined in the your original post is usually/sometimes made by the BiB at the sharp end.
Everyone loves a caution if its them that's receiving it. "Got away with that one Phew! Maybe I will be a bit more careful in the future!!!" Most people hate being put through the process system, even for a minor infringement!
Andmole said:
He/she decides a) I'm going to use my discretion here, have a few sharp/educational words, and that's that, OR b) you're going through the mill sunshine.
Its the only method they can use. Discretion by definition in PH means a let off. Discretion is often the process route when the officer decides that the offence needs to be dealt with for any manner of reasons or circumstances at the time and also depending on the remit he/she has been given for that period of patrol.
Andmole said:
This is why the police come in for so much stick sometimes, (rightly or wrongly), because often they have the power to decide if you are going to be exposed to the rest of the system.
An officer that shows no performance criteria by issuing process will not be an officer for very long. Warning everyone is not in their personal interests nor that of the wider community!Andmole said:
BUT you can't deny that often the decision to put you through the mill is made by the front line BiB, sometimes on apparently arbitrary grounds.
The prosecution decision side of it is not made up by the officer. They only put the circumstances to CPS. The police do not prosecute anyone! The officer decides that CPS should look at the circumstances and decide from there. A FPT has exactly the same process. If the person receiving it challenges the facts, it will go to CPS prior to a summons decision being made.Andmole said:
This is where the perception of lack of fairness stems from IMHO. And it is this that colours a lot of peoples views towards the police when it comes to considering the whole picture.
Nobody feels fairly treated if they are reported. Even if the circumstances are overwhelming to indicate that they should be. Everyone feels good if they are warned!
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Mg6b said:
Andmole said:
BUT you can't deny that often the decision to put you through the mill is made by the front line BiB, sometimes on apparently arbitrary grounds.
The prosecution decision side of it is not made up by the officer. They only put the circumstances to CPS. The police do not prosecute anyone! The officer decides that CPS should look at the circumstances and decide from there. A FPT has exactly the same process. If the person receiving it challenges the facts, it will go to CPS prior to a summons decision being made.Would anyone ever get as far as the CPS if the police didn't start the process? NO
The police do not prosecute anyone, but they do start the process that leads potentially to a prosecution, a decision that is sometimes based on somewhat arbitrary conditions, or conditions that seem disconnected from "reality"*
(*by which I mean reality as perceived by the vast majority of "middle England" whoever that may be)
I AM
ING WELL FED UP OF PEOPLE READING WHAT THEY THOUGHT I WROTE, NOT WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! streaky said:
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
I don't hear a clear united voice representing massive numbers of people telling him what to do ?PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Who is the mouthpiece & what are they saying ?
vonhosen said:
streaky said:
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
I don't hear a clear united voice representing massive numbers of people telling him what to do ?PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Who is the mouthpiece & what are they saying ?
streaky said:
vonhosen said:
streaky said:
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
I don't hear a clear united voice representing massive numbers of people telling him what to do ?PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Who is the mouthpiece & what are they saying ?
How many of the population can they actually claim (& evidence) to be representing ?
The OP may be right about some posts on PH SPL blaming everything on the police but I can't say I've read that many. There are frequent posts where people acknowledge that political interference and political incompetence is to blame for their gripe (bad laws, bad guidance to police on bad laws) also posts that indicate senior police allowing themselves and their force to become politicised is a problem, together with comments about government targets and how they distort policy and practice. At other times, magistrates and judges are the target. Specifically police front line negativity usually relates to unprofessional BiB attitudes but then officers will meet a lot of bad MoP attitudes.
You get to thinking, clearly the BiB on here and elsewhere are aware of the same issues we are, but then the system of quasi-military discipline and the risk of spies on message boards requires closed mouths and closed ranks or career prospects, even jobs and pensions are on the line. Which then makes BiB appear to be part of the problem when it's not so. Such is life in Bliar's and now Brown's Britain.
You get to thinking, clearly the BiB on here and elsewhere are aware of the same issues we are, but then the system of quasi-military discipline and the risk of spies on message boards requires closed mouths and closed ranks or career prospects, even jobs and pensions are on the line. Which then makes BiB appear to be part of the problem when it's not so. Such is life in Bliar's and now Brown's Britain.
andmole said:
BUT you can't deny that often the decision to put you through the mill is made by the front line BiB, sometimes on apparently arbitrary grounds. This is where the perception of lack of fairness stems from IMHO. And it is this that colours a lot of peoples views towards the police when it comes to considering the whole picture.
But can't you see the problem here. If a decision is made to put you through the mill automatically without any discretion, then many PHers don't like it. If a decision is made to put you through the mill after excercising discretion, then many PHers still don't like it. It's only when discretion means you walk away, then everyone seems happy.Which is where the perception comes from that those who ask for discretion simply want to get off.
BFF
vonhosen said:
streaky said:
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
I don't hear a clear united voice representing massive numbers of people telling him what to do ?PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Who is the mouthpiece & what are they saying ?
DucatiGary said:
vonhosen said:
streaky said:
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
I don't hear a clear united voice representing massive numbers of people telling him what to do ?PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Who is the mouthpiece & what are they saying ?
I am asking where the clear united voice from the people is that is telling him what to do in relation to traffic enforcement.
Who is the mouthpiece ?
How many can they claim (& evidence) to represent the view of ?
Many grievances come about because of perception. Andmole above is aggrieved at mg6b's perception of what he wrote in this very thread.
The problem the police face in the process outlined above by mg6b is that they are the first point of contact: nobody is stopped at the roadside or whatever by the CPS or the courts. So if a prosecution subsequently begins, the person 'nicked' perceives it was started by the officer who 'nicked' him.
The problem the police face in the process outlined above by mg6b is that they are the first point of contact: nobody is stopped at the roadside or whatever by the CPS or the courts. So if a prosecution subsequently begins, the person 'nicked' perceives it was started by the officer who 'nicked' him.
Cider Andy said:
Many grievances come about because of perception. Andmole above is aggrieved at mg6b's perception of what he wrote in this very thread.
The problem the police face in the process outlined above by mg6b is that they are the first point of contact: nobody is stopped at the roadside or whatever by the CPS or the courts. So if a prosecution subsequently begins, the person 'nicked' perceives it was started by the officer who 'nicked' him.
Which is slightly ironic, as it is usually started by the alledged offender.The problem the police face in the process outlined above by mg6b is that they are the first point of contact: nobody is stopped at the roadside or whatever by the CPS or the courts. So if a prosecution subsequently begins, the person 'nicked' perceives it was started by the officer who 'nicked' him.
BFF
vonhosen said:
DucatiGary said:
vonhosen said:
streaky said:
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
I don't hear a clear united voice representing massive numbers of people telling him what to do ?PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Who is the mouthpiece & what are they saying ?
I am asking where the clear united voice from the people is that is telling him what to do in relation to traffic enforcement.
Who is the mouthpiece ?
How many can they claim (& evidence) to represent the view of ?
Which was ignored.
Hopefully we'll make him listen in the only way we have left - at the ballot box.
Then maybe you lot might be out thief taking rather than number filling.
Cider Andy said:
Many grievances come about because of perception. Andmole above is aggrieved at mg6b's perception of what he wrote in this very thread.
It's not a perception. It's fact!Cider Andy said:
The problem the police face in the process outlined above by mg6b is that they are the first point of contact: nobody is stopped at the roadside or whatever by the CPS or the courts. So if a prosecution subsequently begins, the person 'nicked' perceives it was started by the officer who 'nicked' him.
Of course the person who is 'nicked' perceives that it is the police that start the process because it is although as Big Fat F'r points out, usually, the person that starts the issue is the offender against the law or sometimes the victim. But it is not the police who decide how far it goes unless the officer at the time issues a caution or decides to ignore the issue altogether.Who else would you have make those decisions then if it is not the police?
Everyone is happy with a caution or being ignored and think that the police are doing a wonderful job if it happens to be them that are committing the offence. That goes from number plate infringements to burglars!
Residents think it is marvellous when speed enforcement arrives in their village to answer their calls to address the issue before someone is killed. They are not so happy when they are caught in their own village exceeding the limit or in someone else's village when the discretion used by the officer happens to be a matter of process and not a warning!
Edited by Mg6b on Sunday 6th January 14:12
mg6b said:
Residents think it is marvellous when speed enforcement arrives in their village to answer their calls to address the issue before someone is killed.
Not here. There is (was?) a fine chap around these tractor toting parts called Sgt Bunce - not a made up name honest but I might have misspelt it - who would respond to the village idiots by visiting the location in question with his trusty speed gun and ask the complainant to accompany him if possible. During the conversations I had with him he indicated that the problem was usually at a location near a junction or bend (problems in themselves) and were associated with cars where the driver would still be using a low gear and accelerating so the car 'sounded' fast. Almost always the vast majority of cars in these locations were within the speed limit, and those exceeding it were locals.Nowadays the automated enforcement option is more prevalent and people whining about may be taken at face value as the political fashion of the day is anti-car. After all, who but BRAKE and their ilk, the same BRAKE with hardly any drivers in its ranks, the same BRAKE as quoted at police speed awareness propaganda sessions, would describe the 7 day ban and re-test placed by mags on a mentally insecure driver making progress on a motorway at 10mph part-in lane one and part on the hard shoulder, as follows:
BRAKE spokesidiot said:
This case sends out a very strange message to drivers. Mrs Cole was not breaking the speed limit or endangering anyone with her actions, yet she received a seven day ban, when we commonly see drivers caught travelling at 80 or 90mph get away with a fine and three points. While it is not common to encounter someone travelling at 10mph on a motorway, a competent driver should always be looking well ahead and predicting when they need to overtake a slower vehicle.
Driving on the hard shoulder - legal or not?10mph on a motorway - endangering others or not?
Under the doc for 3 years over fear of driving - mentally fit to be behind the wheel or not?
BRAKE - uninformed feckwits or not?
Anyway, back to the OP, police do a difficult job and all PH BiB are marvellous
vonhosen said:
streaky said:
vonhosen said:
streaky said:
The entire system is increasingly becoming a sausage machine ... driven by meeting centrally-set targets - Streay
PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
I don't hear a clear united voice representing massive numbers of people telling him what to do ?PS - interesting that Gordon Brown advises President Kibaki to "listen to his people" ... but refuses to do the same himself. Like Meredydd Hughes, it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'! - S
Who is the mouthpiece & what are they saying ?
How many of the population can they actually claim (& evidence) to be representing ?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff