Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
V1nce Fox said:
Hol said:
Before they run out of the popular sizes, we should all put our orders in.
I've never quite got what that's supposed to mean. 
The Mad Monk said:
MilkRound - when is your court case?
Is it the second week in September? Have you heard any more?
I don't want to give the exact date. Is it the second week in September? Have you heard any more?
I actually did here something today. Even though I did a defence statement etc and the CPS have been asked repeatedly for any evidence they still have not given anything. So my solicitors have asked the magistrates court for a hearing so they can hopefully get some disclosure. I dont have to go to this hearing.
Its behind a joke really... I wouldn't be surprised if the cps hadn't even bothered to look at any of it themselves yet. In terms or disclosure all we have asked for is all the cctv footage and the recordings of the police calls. So it's not like I'm asking for anything they dont have on their own computers.
It'll be dropped.
There's no duty to retreat to avoid an assault, though it may be considered in evidence, in context of the whole situation.
So there's no duty to retreat when being assaulted but not retreating can be considered along with all of the evidence.
But are the police going to disclose all of the evidence, or just edited highlights that suits their case?
There's no duty to retreat to avoid an assault, though it may be considered in evidence, in context of the whole situation.
So there's no duty to retreat when being assaulted but not retreating can be considered along with all of the evidence.
But are the police going to disclose all of the evidence, or just edited highlights that suits their case?
Edited by carinaman on Friday 16th August 17:30
It’s probably not a case of the CPS “not being bothered”, it’s probably more likely t9 be they’re as chronically understaffed as every other public service, which may well be why they’ve not got round to it yet. That’s not to say they shouldn’t comply with the time limits on pre-trial disclosure (they absolutely should, as should the Police), but for the OP, this is the only case he has to be concerned with. It’ll be one of many, many cases sitting on every Crown Prosecutor’s desk. I’d wager there will be similar delays in pre trial disclosure in each and every one of them. It’s less likely if it’s a “big job”, as they do tend to get looked at both earlier and more closely.
Despite it being (maybe almost) all consuming for the OP, this really is “minor” in the (CPS’s) grand scheme of things.
Despite it being (maybe almost) all consuming for the OP, this really is “minor” in the (CPS’s) grand scheme of things.
Dibble said:
It’s probably not a case of the CPS “not being bothered”, it’s probably more likely t9 be they’re as chronically understaffed as every other public service, which may well be why they’ve not got round to it yet. That’s not to say they shouldn’t comply with the time limits on pre-trial disclosure (they absolutely should, as should the Police), but for the OP, this is the only case he has to be concerned with. It’ll be one of many, many cases sitting on every Crown Prosecutor’s desk. I’d wager there will be similar delays in pre trial disclosure in each and every one of them. It’s less likely if it’s a “big job”, as they do tend to get looked at both earlier and more closely.
Despite it being (maybe almost) all consuming for the OP, this really is “minor” in the (CPS’s) grand scheme of things.
I get that. And I'd agree it's not really important to anyone other than me and people directly associated with me. Despite it being (maybe almost) all consuming for the OP, this really is “minor” in the (CPS’s) grand scheme of things.
But as the solicitors have not asked the same magistrates for a hearing to force the cps to give disclosure - I presume that the cps will have to attend this. Which is more work for them than actually just sending it? Now if everyone is having to do this - it must mean there are loads of hearings which must cause havoc for the courts and the cps? (I have no idea if that's actually the case).
To me it seems so simple. My solicitor asks for the CCTV and the telephone calls. They send them as an attachment via email and it's all done in about 30 seconds. I am sure there is more to it than that. I think the solicitor even said they have a special online website to upload it to. I really don't understand how this is such hard work.
milkround said:
I get that. And I'd agree it's not really important to anyone other than me and people directly associated with me.
But as the solicitors have not asked the same magistrates for a hearing to force the cps to give disclosure - I presume that the cps will have to attend this. Which is more work for them than actually just sending it? Now if everyone is having to do this - it must mean there are loads of hearings which must cause havoc for the courts and the cps? (I have no idea if that's actually the case).
To me it seems so simple. My solicitor asks for the CCTV and the telephone calls. They send them as an attachment via email and it's all done in about 30 seconds. I am sure there is more to it than that. I think the solicitor even said they have a special online website to upload it to. I really don't understand how this is such hard work.
Because the legal system in this Country is now a complete shambles from start to finish. Most of the people in it are of a very low level of skill. Solicitors,Barristers and CPS are all the dregs. Anyone with skill left this country and went else where years ago along with all the doctors and engineers.But as the solicitors have not asked the same magistrates for a hearing to force the cps to give disclosure - I presume that the cps will have to attend this. Which is more work for them than actually just sending it? Now if everyone is having to do this - it must mean there are loads of hearings which must cause havoc for the courts and the cps? (I have no idea if that's actually the case).
To me it seems so simple. My solicitor asks for the CCTV and the telephone calls. They send them as an attachment via email and it's all done in about 30 seconds. I am sure there is more to it than that. I think the solicitor even said they have a special online website to upload it to. I really don't understand how this is such hard work.
There are people on PH that know more about the law than many solicitors who just bungle as best they can. As you are now finding out.
If your a premiership footballer and you are accused things get done when you have one of the QC's that have not fled the sinking ship UK. Otherwise it's joe puplic and the conveyer belt justice.
carinaman said:
It'll be dropped.
But are the police going to disclose all of the evidence, or just edited highlights that suits their case?
The prosecution has to release all evidence they intend to rely on some time before the hearing (not sure of the time scales in the UK).But are the police going to disclose all of the evidence, or just edited highlights that suits their case?
Edited by carinaman on Friday 16th August 17:30
I suspect the solicitors will try and get it dismissed through lack of disclosure.
The prosecution will be hoping the accused goes "guilty" to get it all over with, so they don't have to do any real work.
I reckon it will be dropped as well, then go after the CPS for full costs - (which, of course, may involve another hearing).
caziques said:
The prosecution has to release all evidence they intend to rely on some time before the hearing (not sure of the time scales in the UK).
Do not rely on the prosecution for anything, like the police, their job is to secure a conviction. It’s not unknown for them to conveniently lose evidence.caziques said:
I reckon it will be dropped as well, then go after the CPS for full costs - (which, of course, may involve another hearing).
Good luck with that.Of course the OP’s solicitor will suggest this, but he will expect be paid before any hearing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff